Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER  in the Chair]

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

MINISTERS OF THE CROWN

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:

I have received your Address praying that the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity Order 1968 be made in the form of the draft laid before your House.

I will comply with your request.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967 that The Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Criminal Appeal Act 1968.
2. Courts-Martial (Appeals) Act 1968.
3. Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1968.
4. Legitimation (Scotland) Act 1968.
5. Rent Act 1968.
6. Commonwealth Telecommunications Act 1968.
7. Scottish Life Assurance Company Act 1968.
8. Saint Mary, Summerstown Act 1968.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

Deficit

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Transport what revised estimate of the deficit and losses of British Railways he has made following the Budget and devaluation, for the year ending 31st March 1969.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Richard Marsh): No revised estimate has been made because I still expect the deficit to be in accordance with the estimate.

Sir G. Nabarro: Having regard to the fact that last year's losses were more than £150 million—quite staggering in character—and that losses this year are proceeding at a higher level, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can confirm or deny that authoritative sources putting losses at £200 million for this year are nearer to the mark?

Mr. Marsh: No, the hon. Gentleman is committing the mistake of believing all that he reads.

Mr. Webster: May I congratulate the Minister on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box to answer Questions? Is he aware that we expect him to reduce the deficit, as was done in the years when the Tory Party was in office, without shuffling this on to the P.T.A.s and other bodies?

Mr. Marsh: It is not unreasonable that we should be able to give the Board some relief from what are totally unrealistic, inherited capital burdens. This is the purpose of the policy.

London-Newcastle (Motorail Fare)

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is satisfied that the recent increase of more than 50 per cent. in the Motorail return fare between London and Newcastle is compatible with the Government's prices and incomes policy; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Marsh: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer given to the hon.


Member for Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) on 2nd February, 1968.—[Vol. 757, c. 425.]

Mr. Goodhart: If an increase in fares from £19 to £29 is consistent with Government policy during a period of price restraint, is the right hon. Gentleman surprised that the travelling public is in despair?

Mr. Marsh: I do not see why the travelling public should be in despair. This is the first increase since 1960. If the rest of British industry had done as well, the travelling public would have been very happy.

Mr. R. W. Elliott: The travelling public will deplore this fantastic increase. If this service was showing a loss commensurate with this enormous increase in fares, why was it not determined before?

Mr. Marsh: Firstly, this is the first increase on this line since 1960, which is a very good record. Secondly, the Opposition cannot have it both ways. They want the nationalised industries to conform to market pressures and the evidence here is that the market will bear more.

Socially Useful Railway Lines (Cost)

Mr. Galbraith: asked the Minister of Transport how the cost of socially useful railway lines in excess of £55 million per annum will be financed.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Neil Carmichael): The figure of £55 million is an estimate of the likely total cost, not a statutory limit. The whole cost of these grants will be financed from the Exchequer.

Mr. Galbraith: If the figure of £55 million is only an estimate, does this mean that, if all socially useful lines are to be kept open, the figure means nothing at all and is in fact an open ended subsidy from the Government which may well be in excess of £55 million?

Mr. Carmichael: No, Sir. We are not in a position to improve on the broad estimate of £55 million made by the Joint Steering Group, but we have no reason to think that the figure is unrealistic.

British Railways (Annual Report)

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Minister of Transport when the Annual Report of British Railways will be published.

Mr. Marsh: Today week.

Mr. Taylor: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, while these Annual Reports are very interesting, the information in them is often out of date? Can he indicate what will be the final revised figure for 1967 and in general whether there has been an improvement or deterioration in the financial position of British Railways in the first three months of this year?

Mr. Marsh: We have already announced the 1967 deficit as £153 million and the 1968 deficit is estimated at £152 million. The accounts will be in the Annual Report.

Accident, Hither Green (Inquiry Report)

Mr. Moyle: asked the Minister of Transport when the report of the public inquiry into the Hither Green railway disaster will be published.

Mr. Marsh: The Report by Colonel McMullen, Chief Inspecting Officer, on the Hither Green accident has been delayed by the formal investigation into the accident at Hixon automatic half-barrier level crossing on 6th January. He will complete the Report as soon as possible, but it is unlikely that it can be published before July or August. Colonel McMullen is, however, satisfied that the cause of the Hither Green accident was a broken rail and that the steps taken since the accident by the British Railways Board to improve track testing and maintenance are adequate.

Mr. Moyle: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reassurance. Would he agree that public inquiries, particularly where the question of human life is involved, should be completed as quickly as possible to ensure that any uncertainty that may exist is investigated and cleared up quickly? Is not 10 months too long a time to wait for these matters to be cleared up?

Mr. Marsh: I appreciate my hon. Friend's anxiety, which I share. The problem here was, as I say, the subsequent accident at Hixon. It is important, in addition to speed—and I assure my hon. Friend that I accept the need for speed—that accidents of this sort should be thoroughly investigated.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Would the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the publication date, since I suggest that July or August is too far ahead for us to wait and since public concern about this matter is really acute? Is he aware that he would be performing a valuable service if he made the Report available long before July?

Mr. Marsh: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we want to expedite the publication of the Report as much as we can. However, the Hixon accident is involved and it is important that both of these inquiries should be conducted exhaustively, in terms of avoiding future accidents on the same basis and for the benefit of the people involved.

Mr. Webster: At this time of financial stringency, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that there is no cut back in measures designed to achieve safety on the permanent way?

Mr. Marsh: Yes, Sir.

Accident (Burnley)

Sir Frank Pearson: asked the Minister of Transport if, in order to ensure the safety of engine drivers and firemen, he will obtain a report from the Inspector of Accidents into the death of a fireman while the train passed under a bridge near Burnley.

Mr. Marsh: The Railways Board has sent me a report on this unfortunate accident. I understand that a joint inquiry was made by the Burnley Borough Police and the British Transport Police, Midland Area; the inquest has been adjourned until 21st May, and I cannot anticipate the verdict. In the meantime, I should like to take this opportunity to express my sympathy to the bereaved.

Sir Frank Pearson: While wishing to add my sympathy to that expressed by the right hon. Gentleman to the bereaved and while thanking the Minister for that

Answer, may I ask him to ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education to see if something can be done through the schools to inculcate a greater degree of responsibility among young people in regard to this type of accident?

Mr. Marsh: I have a great deal of sympathy with the point made by the hon. Gentleman. The tragedy is that small children do strange things from time to time; but I agree that this is a point that might well be brought home to the schools.

Liverpool-Gateacre Suburban Railway

Mr. Fortescue: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the Liverpool bus strike and the fact that bus services will be much reduced in Liverpool when the strike is over, he will reconsider the proposal that the Liverpool-Gateacre suburban railway line should be closed.

Mr. Carmichael: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend has no power to reverse his predecessor's decision. But the closure cannot take place unless and until the additional bus services specified in the conditions of consent set out in the Department's letter of 21st April, 1966, are available.

Mr. Fortescue: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that every train on this line has been packed by commuters and others for the last nine weeks and the five single-decker buses proposed to replace them will be entirely inadequate? Will the Minister show a little flexibility and admit that the decision made by his predecessor to close this line was shortsighted and wrong?

Mr. Carmichael: The question of reversal of a decision is of course not possible statutorily, but on the question of the numbers travelling it may of course be necessary to revise the number of buses put on to replace the trains.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Passenger Fares

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Transport, having regard to the 3½ per cent. maximum increase to be permitted


for incomes and prices, what steps he is taking to stabilise railway and omnibus passenger fares during 1968–69.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): Any major increases proposed in rail fares, or in underground or bus fares in London, are referred to the National Board for Prices and Incomes. Other bus fares are controlled by the independent Traffic Commisioners who have a duty to take into account the criteria of the Prices and Incomes Act, 1966.

Sir G. Nabarro: I am aware of all these things. Will the hon. Gentleman now apply himself to the Question? What is to be the influence on the prices and incomes policy of precipitate rises in fares for the millions of commuters in London and elsewhere? Will he resist such rises resolutely, as befits his office?

Mr. Swingler: There are no precipitate rises in fares in this respect. All these matters are being scrutinised by the National Board for Prices and Incomes. Moreover, in the case of London fares, they then have to go before the Transport Tribunal, where they are open to objection. No precipitate changes are being made. London fares have been stable since January, 1966.

Sir R. Cary: May I ask the Minister of State whether he is aware that a large number of services that are socially desirable but completely uneconomic can be operated only if fares are increased? Is he aware that it may not be possible to imprison that rise within 3½ per cent.?

Mr. Swingler: The hon. Gentleman may be right, in which case the criteria will have to be applied. In those instances which he is thinking about, they are applied by the Traffic Commissioners, and appeals are possible from them to my right hon. Friend. That is how these matters are judged.

Goods (Loss in Transit)

Captain W. Elliot: asked the Minister of Transport if he will issue a general directive to the Transport Holding Company to extend beyond 14 days the period within which claims for compensation for goods lost in transit may be submitted.

Mr. Swingler: No, Sir. The conditions under which traffic is carried are a matter of management for the Holding Company and its subsidiaries.

Captain Elliot: Would the Minister look into this? A spokesman has made a statement to the effect that claims will not be considered after 14 days. Is he aware that this means inconvenience for customers, as good often take longer than that to arrive?

Mr. Swingler: I am advised that the statement incorporated in the hon. Gentleman's Question is not correct. If he knows of any hard cases, of which at the moment the British Transport Holding Company is unaware, I shall be glad to go into the matter with the Holding Company.

Transport Bill

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Transport what recent representations he has received from the farming community about the effects of the Transport Bill on farming.

Mr. Carmichael: We have received a number of representations, mainly concerned with the goods transport provisions of the Bill, and we, with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, have consulted the industry.

Mr. Marten: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the anxieties of the farming community about the increased costs which will fall either on the farmer or the consumer or the taxpayers through the Price Review? As the Minister of Agriculture has said that he cannot calculate what will be the cost to the farming community, is not this a curious way to run the Government?

Mr. Carmichael: We have no evidence that there will be any marked increase in agricultural costs. Traffic will be diverted to the railways if the rail service concerned is good enough in terms of speed and cost. Where perishable goods are involved, it is likely that the railways will accept that these constitute a special case for road transport and will not even object.

Mr. Manuel: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the main fears of the farming community was in relation to the carriage of livestock and that, since these provisions were removed from the Bill, those fears no longer exist?

Mr. Carmichael: A number of other concessions have been made to the farming community as well—for instance, in relation to drivers' hours—because we recognise that it has certain special difficulties, including seasonal difficulties. These have been met in the Bill as far as possible

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: asked the Minister of Transport what representations he has received from people or firms in Norfolk against the Transport Bill; and what answer he has given them.

Mr. Carmichael: We have received a number of representations from individuals and firms in Norfolk about the Transport Bill. They are mostly concerned with the road haulage provisions of the Bill and appropriate replies have been sent.

Mr. Hill: Is the Minister aware that I can send him plenty more of a severely practical and objective nature? Does he agree that the Bill, unless amended, raises the grave danger of half hamstringing a county's transport merely because of its geographical situation?

Mr. Carmichael: There is no evidence that any special difficulties will be anticipated in Norfolk. There are arrangements in the Bill whereby rail will only compete for traffic when it will be more economic. The criterion which has been laid down will safeguard Norfolk as well as the rest of the country.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: asked the Minister of Transport what study he has made of the availability of hostel or similar accommodation in the London area for those long-distance drivers who will now be unable to return home in one day because of the proposed restriction on drivers' hours in the Transport Bill; and what conclusions he has reached.

Mr. Carmichael: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) on 6th November, 1967.—[Vol. 753, c. 67–68.]

Mr. Hill: Whatever that reply may have been, is it not nonsensical to risk not making the optimum use of expensive equipment, vehicles and skilled operators by preventing their taking a return load in one day and getting home?

Mr. Carmichael: This is true, except that it must be accepted that the safety factors involved in the return load are also important. It is now 30-odd years since the drivers' hours were fixed at 11 and it is thought that a reduction is needed, particularly considering the very big increase in traffic over the last 35 years.

Mr. Lane: Would the hon. Gentleman consider coming to visit East Anglia during the recess to hear for himself what some people feel and fear about the Transport Bill?

Mr. Carmichael: I have travelled a great deal, not perhaps in East Anglia, but in many other areas and in Scotland, where we had many of the same objections. I am glad to say that the more the Bill becomes known by people in areas such as these, the more they realise that the campaign launched against it was badly organised and ill-founded.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Minister of Transport what representations he has received from the milk distributive trade regarding the effects of the Transport Bill; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Carmichael: We have had several such representations, mainly about quantity licensing and drivers' hours. We are still considering some of the points raised.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman remember that I wrote to him as long ago as 16th February on behalf of an important section of the trade in Scotland and still have not had any reply or comment? Does he not appreciate that there is great concern in this industry, which provides a seven-day service, about working a seven-day week and about the effects of the new provisions for drivers' hours?

Mr. Carmichael: I must apologise for the delay in answering and I will take it up at the Ministry. There have, of


course, been many letters and circulars from hon. Members on the Transport Bill and the Ministry is working very hard answering them. We are still concerned, although we want to help in every way possible, that milkmen must be given the same chance to be fit and ready for their work, so as not to cause accidents, as any other driver. The safety aspect is very important.

Mr. Manuel: Is my hon. Friend aware that the vast majority of vehicles used in milk distribution are exempt from the licensing provisions of the Bill, and that the question of the heavier vehicles, over 16 tons and going over 100 miles, are still being considered?

Mr. Carmichael: It is true that vehicles under 30 cwt., which are the bulk of the daily delivery vehicles, are completely exempt, not from the drivers' hours provisions but from the other provisions of the Bill.

Mr. MacArthur: Has the hon. Gentleman considered the Bill's serious impact on milk deliveries in rural areas over long distances, particularly in Scotland? Is he aware of the growing demand in Scotland for the withdrawal of this wretched Bill, and will he try to influence his right hon. Friend to withdraw it?

Mr. Carmichael: I am sorry, but I am not aware of this growing demand. As I said, I think that the campaign did not really get off the ground. I met as many Scottish hauliers as most hon. Members and I found that, once the Bill had been explained to them, they frequently took a totally different view from the popular image given by hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Costain: asked the Minister of Transport what representations he has received from the various canal and waterway associations on the Transport Bill; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Carmichael: Several associations interested in the various recreational and amenity uses of the nationalised inland waterways have made constructive suggestions. Some of these have led to Government amendments to the Transport Bill which have been welcomed by the Standing Committee. We are considering carefully other points raised by hon. Members in Committee.

Mr. Costain: Would the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Minister is enthusiastic about the use of waterways for recreation? Will he take further note of the representations made to him to improve these facilities?

Mr. Carmichael: For the first time, I think, a Government have recognised the greater part which the inland waterways can play in giving amenities in a crowded island like ours. The Bill embodies a realistic appreciation of what can be done with the waterways and how they can be used. It is a very helpful part of the Bill, which should be welcomed by all.

Accidents (Skidding Cars)

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Transport what is the estimated proportion of accidents caused by cars skidding.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Bob Brown): In 1966, skidding occurred in 24 per cent. of personal injury accidents, but the skidding was not necessarily the cause of all of them.

Mr. Marten: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that perhaps the greatest contribution to road safety which the Ministry could make is to encourage the four-wheeled drive, which is being developed on a commercial basis for the ordinary motorist?

Mr. Brown: My right hon. Friend is doing a number of things for road safety on the question of skidding including the new tyre regulations and continual research into road surfacing. Manufacturers are also continually improving the anti-skid properties of tyres and the Road Research Laboratory is doing research on anti-lock braking systems. Indeed, research is continually going on into the subject.

Nationalised Industries (Subsidiary Companies)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Transport if he will place in the Library copies of the accounts of all subsidiary companies of nationalised industries under his control.

Mr. Carmichael: We have agreed with the nationalised transport industries to make available to the House copies of the


future accounts of their active direct subsidiaries as and when they are required to be filed with the Registrar of Companies.

Mr. Ridley: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on reversing the policy of the previous Minister. Will this include the accounts of subsidiaries of British Railways making and repairing railway wagons?

Mr. Carmichael: This is not a departure from previous practice. All that has happened is that previous accounts filed with the Registrar will also be put in the Library, and perhaps save hon. Members some trouble. The hon. Gentleman is really asking about Clause 45, which was discussed in great detail in Committee. The accounts of the railway workshops, as a subsidiary, will also be placed in the Library.

Nationalised Industries (Board Members' Salaries)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Transport if he will raise the salaries of the board members of the nationalised industries under his control to levels commensurate with those paid by the British Steel Corporation.

Mr. Webster: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will hold a review of the salary structure for board members in the nationalised industries sponsored by his Department.

Mr. Marsh: As I told the House on 15th March, 1967, the salaries fixed for members of the then new Steel Corporation were related to the special position of the steel industry. It will of course be necessary later this year to determine the salaries of members of the new authorities proposed in the Transport Bill. These salaries will be considered in the light of the need to obtain the best people for the jobs and of the position elsewhere in nationalised transport and in nationalised industries generally.

Mr. Ridley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his position of pretending that the Steel Corporation is in some way special is entirely bogus and without foundation? Will he admit that the Government have made a serious error in underpaying the chairmen and board members of nationalised industries, and will he give an undertaking to put it right

in the forthcoming review to which he has referred?

Mr. Marsh: One of the problems that one faces, concerning the salaries of chairmen and board members of nationalised industries, is that it was not faced up to for a very long period previously, and hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot deny it.

Sir G. Nabarro: What about Beeching?

Mr. Marsh: We are now faced with——

Sir G. Nabarro: What about Beeching?

Mr. Marsh: The hon. Gentleman is even more repetitive this afternoon.
We are now faced with particular problems over the prices and incomes policy. The Government are determined to ensure that the people appointed to boards are the best available.

Mr. Webster: Does the Minister agree that it is essential to bring in the best people from outside industry and to recruit people from inside nationalised industries, and will he undertake not to be intimidated by the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity?

Mr. Marsh: The Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity shares the views which I, as a member of the Government, share on this matter.

River Mersey (Commuting Traffic)

Mr. Brooks: asked the Minister of Transport what is his estimate of the increase in commuter traffic between south and north Merseyside likely by the late nineteen-seventies; and what proposals he has for providing further river river crossings during the next decade.

Mr. Bob Brown: Although we have some indications of the future volume of commuter traffic across the Mersey, full and up-to-date information must await completion of the Merseyside Area Land Use Transportation Study. Until then no decisions can be taken on further river crossings, beyond the duplication of the Liverpool-Wallasey Tunnel which is already programmed.

Mr. Brooks: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the public will have ample opportunity to consider the land use implications of the high-level bridge


which is now under consideration between Bebington and Liverpool? Further, does he agree that the high costs of commuting across the River Mersey require considerable thought to be given, when future decisions are taken, over the location of new jobs in Liverpool and Wirral respectively.

Mr. Brown: The public will be consulted by the M.A.L.U.T. study. The decision on the third crossing will depend on the findings of the M.A.L.U.T. study. It is too early to say, as yet, whether it will take the form of a tunnel or a bridge. This will depend on the location, cost, and other factors.

Mr. Fortescue: Has any consideration been given to the possibility of a hovercraft service across the upper Mersey estuary which, being all water at high tide and nearly all sand at low tide, will be eminently suitable for such a form of transport?

Mr. Brown: This is another question. In any event, this is surely a question for the Merseyside Area Land Use Transportation Study Group.

Mr. Ogden: Is my hon. Friend aware that the rapid redevelopment of the city centres of Liverpool and Birkenhead will make it difficult to find a route for a third crossing near the city centres? Will he look into the possibility of a bridge or tunnel on the line of the outer ring road?

Mr. Brown: As I have said, this is a matter for the Study Group. It is too early to say at this stage. The location will depend entirely on cost and other factors.

Mr. Tilney: Does the Minister agree that Merseyside, although undergoing a little heart surgery at present in the construction of two tunnels, will in future badly need more bridges if the two sides of the Mersey are to operate as one economic unit?

Mr. Brown: No. while some forecasts of the future volume of cross-river traffic have been made—for example, in the Merseyside Traffic Survey published in 1962—we consider that the projections to be produced as part of the M.A.L.U.T. study will prove more useful for the long-term transportation planning of the area.

Coal

Mr. Eadie: asked the Minister of Transport what estimate he has made of the effect of the contraction of the coal industry upon the ports in Scotland.

Mr. Swingler: None, Sir. This is, in the first place, a matter for the port authorities concerned, who are in touch with the National Coal Board about future coal shipments.

Mr. Eadie: Would my hon. Friend not agree that there is a strong feeling that the contractions of the mining industry cannot be considered in isolation, that this augurs badly for other industries and that investigations should be made?

Mr. Swingler: My right hon. Friend and the Government have shown that they agree that the matter cannot be taken in isolation, but I am advised that, in 1967, coal amounted to only about 8 per cent. of total port traffic in Scotland and that the total level of port traffic there was maintained, but this is a matter over which, no doubt, the port authorities are keeping a careful watch.

Sir G. Nabarro: But would not the hon. Gentleman apply himself to advising the Minister of Power to use Scottish coal, transported by Scottish rail, to the new Alcan smelter at Invergordon, thereby using Scottish resources and preventing the electoral debâcle of yesterday in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Paisley?

Mr. Swingler: As usual, the hon. Gentleman has introduced a number of extraneous matters. We will, nevertheless go into them but they are, of course, the responsibility first of the port authorities.

Mr. Eadie: asked the Minister of Transport what losses in revenue are anticipated by the railway industry as a result of contraction of the mining industry.

Mr. Carmichael: The effect on net revenue will depend on the pattern of the contraction, and the way in which the Board adapts to it.

Mr. Eadie: Is my hon. Friend aware that there was no electoral débâcle in my constituency yesterday? Does he not agree, to return to my Question, that


the figures illustrate the financial problems for the railways of loss of revenue? Would he not agree that this would make it much more difficult for the railways to become more viable?

Mr. Carmichael: Of course the loss of a very big revenue such as coal has an effect on the railways, but there is close liaison between the railways, the National Coal Board and the Central Electricity Generating Board to make the best and most economic use of the railways, such as "merry-go-round" trains, to try to keep the net loss of revenue as low as possible.

Mr. Mapp: Will my hon. Friend, along with the railways and coal industry, face the main problem, which is, in the modern sense, to containerise coal traffic and get rid of the difficulty of loading and unloading? There is a problem in containerising bulk coal, but could this not be looked at carefully?

Mr. Carmichael: As I said, "merry-go-round" trains have been a big step forward and the real investment of the railways in new types of loading and unloading coal has been very high. The C.E.G.B., the railways and the Coal Board are aware of the necessity to keep up to date in these matters.

Channel Tunnel

Mr. Costain: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is yet in a position to announce the location of the termini of the Channel Tunnel; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Marsh: The termini would be in the general area of Folkestone and Calais. My Department is at present consulting local and other interests at official level on the detailed siting of terminal facilities in this country, but there will be more formal consultations before a decision is reached on the proposals to be presented to Parliament.

Mr. Costain: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that until this is settled, it will hold up development in the Folkestone area? Will he do all he can to get an early decision, so that we can get on with our development?

Mr. Marsh: I appreciate the problem, but the hon. Gentleman will recognise

that these are important decisions involving consultations. The Bill provides, of course, in Clause 154 for powers to deal with planning blight.

Mr. Crouch: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, apart from this decision being important from the point of view of the actual termini of the proposed tunnel, the whole question of road strategy in the South-East is held up and that there is a feeling that, in the Ministry's consideration of the volume of road traffic to the Channel ports, Dover and the two new proposed hover ports which are to be built this year are not being given sufficient priority?

Mr. Marsh: This is precisely why one must embark on very exhaustive consultations. These are major decisions and it would be wrong to rush them without proper consultations.

Mr. Peter Walker: Would the right hon. Gentleman confirm that no final decision has yet been taken about proceeding with the tunnel? Will he publish his latest estimates of traffic and revenue for the type of project which is now likely to proceed?

Mr. Marsh: As the hon. Gentleman must be aware, we could not proceed with the tunnel until legislation had gone through the House and the approval of the House had been obtained.

Mr. Ogden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a very important inter-party group, called the Parliamentary Channel Tunnel Group? In view of its patience over the last 12 months, would he consider meeting the group for an all-party or open meeting so that some of these points can be raised for inter-party discussion?

Mr. Marsh: I am in favour of anything which involves hon. Gentlemen opposite in an understanding of difficult decisions, and I would be prepared to consider such an invitation.

Mr. Deedes: Would the right hon. Gentleman avoid the impression of being surreptitious about this project? In view of the great upheaval which will be caused on this side of the Channel, would he appreciate that we have a right to be told more about it?

Mr. Marsh: I find it difficult to understand what the right hon. Gentleman is complaining about. I have explained where the termini are likely to be. The consultations will take place on this with all the parties involved and there is nothing surreptitious about it. Consultations are going on and as soon as the decisions are reached they will be announced.

Mr. Manuel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government are very keen to give the utmost information about the tunnel—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who told you?"] If hon. Members will only wait, I will inform their ignorance. Is my right hon. Friend aware that a new Clause was put down to the Transport Bill with the idea of this matter being settled, but which is receiving nothing but impediments from hon. Gentlemen opposite to avoid discussion?

Mr. Marsh: This is a problem: virtue has a habit of being misunderstood.

Mr. Peter Walker: Would the right hon. Gentleman now answer my previous question—whether or not, apart from Parliamentary approval, the Government have decided definitely to go ahead with the Channel Tunnel? In view of the fact that the figures now available to the House are out-dated, would he publish new ones as soon as possible?

Mr. Marsh: Certainly, at the first possible opportunity, the up-to-date information will be given. The Government's position over the tunnel remains unchanged. Before any such move can be taken to go ahead, it would involve legislation coming before the House.

Mr. Costain: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the question on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

Lorries (High Wind Risks)

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Minister of Transport how many accidents have occurred in the past 12 months involving lorries being blown over on exposed roads and bridges in high winds; and what steps are being taken by his department, other than closing such bridges as the Severn Bridge during high

winds, to reduce these high wind risks to large lorries.

Mr. Bob Brown: No national figures are available, but sample surveys indicate that the number of such accidents is very small. We are prepared to authorise the use of a traffic sign at places where there is persistent danger from high winds.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Does not that show that, when other factors are equal, tunnels are preferable to bridges?

Mr. Brown: That is another question, although expense must be considered.

Road Accidents

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Transport what factors have caused the decline of road accidents per 1,000 vehicles involving death from 3·2 in 1930 to 0·5 in 1967.

Mr. Marsh: The fact that road deaths have decreased in comparison with vehicle population may be attributed to a large number of factors, including the decline in the use of two-wheeled vehicles, improved roads and the whole range of road safety measures.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: The figures having been reduced to one-sixth of the previous level, is it not high time that the motorist was for a change given some credit for doing something good instead of always being penalised and threatened?

Mr. Marsh: I would not want to be in the position of either penalising or threatening motorists, and there is considerable evidence to show that the motorist is well aware of the responsibilities he has to himself and to others. It is, of course, important to put this matter in its right context and I agree that the evidence available at present shows that we are getting a better performance from the point of view of road accidents.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Apart from the standard of driving, which appears to be steadily improving year by year, has the Minister noticed the recent reports of the Metropolitan Police, in which satisfaction is expressed with the increased safety that has been brought about by traffic engineering improvements in the Metropolitan area, which have had the effect


of bringing about an improvement of perhaps 30 per cent. in terms of road accidents?

Mr. Marsh: Certainly that is a contributory factor. However, we must remember that the present accident rate is appallingly high in this country. Anything more that we can do to help to bring down the rate it is right for us to do.

Parking Offences

Sir R. Russell: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will seek to amend the law so that drivers will not have their driving licences endorsed for parking offences.

Mr. Bob Brown: Purely parking offences, as distinct from leaving a vehicle where it creates danger, are not endorsable under existing law.

Sir R. Russell: Would the Parliamentary Secretary agree that a stationary vehicle, however badly parked, is not as dangerous as a moving vehicle? Is it not unfair that the totting up process for disqualification should be the same for leaving a vehicle parked dangerously as for driving dangerously?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman must have missed the point I was making; that purely parking offences—that is, leaving vehicles stationary—are not endorsable at the present time. The categories in which stationary vehicles commit an endorsable offence are leaving a vehicle in a dangerous position—in other words, causing a dangerous obstruction, and this is not a parking offence, its essential ingredient is the causing of danger—stopping on a special road, except on the hard shoulder—this not only dislocates fast-moving traffic but causes a danger—and leaving a vehicle on or near a pedestrian crossing, and I do not think that anyone would argue about this. All of these offences attract endorsement and the court has discretionary power to disqualify.

South-East London

Mr. Hamling: asked the Minister of Transport what discussions he has had with London Transport regarding the provision of Underground services in South-East London.

Mr. Swingler: London Transport plans to extend its rail services in South-East London and elsewhere are regularly discussed between the Ministry and the Board.

Mr. Hamling: Is my hon. Friend aware that we have had promises about this for a very long time? Will he consult his right hon. Friend and obtain his confirmation that travelling daily from South-East London to Central London is well-nigh impossible and that, with future population increases, it will become absolutely impossible within the next five years?

Mr. Swingler: My right hon. Friend is only too well aware of the seriousness of the situation. My hon. Friend will no doubt wish to bear in mind the decisions taken by my right hon. Friend's predecessor about the extension of the tube line. Discussions are now taking place between London Transport and British Railways about possible improvements and extensions of these services, and I hope to make an announcement shortly.

Mr. Galbraith: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether it is likely that these extensions, if they take place, will be financially self-supporting or carried by subsidy?

Mr. Swingler: This matter must be investigated. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of, for example, the proposal for the Fleet line. All these proposals must be examined, like those for the Victoria Line and the Brixton extension. They must all be subject to careful scrutiny and we obviously cannot yet say whether they would be profitable.

Mr. Moyle: Is my hon. Friend aware that the present growth of long-range commuting is squeezing out short-range commuting and overloading the system? Would he agree that supplementing short-range commuting by the underground in South-East London is the only solution?

Mr. Swingler: All these matters must be the subject of investigation and, as I said, London Transport and British Railways are now looking into them. I have no doubt that they will be considering the question of the system becoming overloaded and what further facilities should be provided. The question is what form


these facilities should take, and this is a matter for technical investigation.

Mr. Hamling: asked the Minister of Transport what representations he has received on the building of motorways in South-East London; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Swingler: We have received various representations, including proposals from the G.L.C. for the primary network. We hope to reply shortly.

Mr. Hamling: Would my hon. Friend confirm that there is a good deal of opposition to these projects in South-East London, perhaps because of inadequate compensation being paid to householders when they are displaced? Will he consult with his colleagues to ensure that house owners receive adequate compensation so that they are able to replace their existing properties with comparable properties?

Mr. Swingler: The question of compensation is another matter which is under investigation. My hon. Friend is no doubt aware that we are programming various sections of these proposals from the point of view of examining those which are particularly urgent. Naturally, the whole question of proposals about, for example, motorway boxes may be challenged when the Greater London Development Plan comes under inquiry.

Sir E. Bullus: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the Greater London Council is really getting on with this work and that, while it was left for many years, it is now making a good job of it and that the G.L.C. deserves all the support he can give it?

Mr. Swingler: Very substantial progress has been made in the last few years. The reason is, of course, the level of the roads programme. We hope to continue on that course, and that is the approach we will take in considering the proposals of the G.L.C.

Manchester Ship Canal (Low-Level Bridge)

Mr. Tilney: asked the Minister of Transport what investigations he has made into the cost of a low-level bridge from Speke rising to cross the Manchester Ship Canal, so that traffic can flow more

easily between the south end of Liverpool and the Wirral.

Mr. Bob Brown: None, Sir. This matter is within the purview of the Merseyside Area Land Use Transportation Study.

Mr. Tilney: Since traffic needs to flow freely round the periphery of great conurbations and since there is no such means at present for this to happen on Merseyside, will the hon. Gentleman look into the economies to be achieved by, for example, the pre-stressed concrete bridge built by the Tasmanian Government over the Derwent at Hobart and costing about one-third of the price of a tunnel?

Mr. Brown: I will commend the hon. Gentleman's suggestion to my right hon. Friend, but at present it is too early to go into detailed consideration of the type and location of such a crossing. It is also too early to comment on the issue of cost.

Mr. Ogden: When my hon. Friend is considering what type of crossing it should be, will he bear in mind the fact that the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board provides the Manchester Ship Canal Company with the use of a crane called "The Mammoth" and that, unless there is consideration of the need for a high-level bridge, Manchester may not be able to rely on this type of assistance from Merseyside in the future?

Mr. Brown: Yes, Sir.

Heavy Duty Vehicles (Mud Flaps)

Mr. George Jeger: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make it compulsory for heavy duty vehicles to have mud flaps fitted to their rear wings.

Mr. Bob Brown: Mudguarding must be tailored to the many different types of commercial vehicle and could not readily be specified in regulation; nor are we satisfied that the cost of compulsory fitting could be justified by accident savings.
Manufacturers have been asked to take account, when designing vehicles, of recommendations on spray control made by the Road Research Laboratory.

Mr. Jeger: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of the hazards and great


danger of windscreens being obscured by dollops of mud when following heavy duty vehicles, the wheels of which are high off the ground?

Mr. Brown: I assure my hon. Friend that we are well aware of this problem. However, only a very small proportion of the total number of accidents is directly due to mud on windscreens, although the number of accidents in which this is a contributory factor is not yet known.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Would the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Road Research Laboratory is doubtful whether mud flaps are effective?

Mr. Brown: The Road Research Laboratory has conducted long-term research into this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Dovercourt Bypass

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Minister of Transport when work on the Dovercourt bypass will now start.

Mr. Swingler: I have nothing to add to the Answer which I gave to the hon. Member on 27th March.—[Vol. 761, c. 1523.]

Mr. Ridsdale: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to the road from Parkeston Quay Road to Harwich Quay? I understand from the county council that it has no information of the Minister's intentions and that the reply that he gave me was misleading.

Mr. Swingler: It was not misleading. There are two stages to the scheme. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the first stage has been put into the preparation list and has been prepared by the Essex County Council, which is responsible for the whole scheme. If it wishes to put further proposals, we shall consider them.

Controlled Parking Zone Scheme, Enfield

Sir R. Russell: asked the Minister of Transport what has been the result of the operation of the free controlled parking zone scheme in the London Borough of Enfield; and how it com-

pares with meter parking in other boroughs.

Mr. Swingler: The scheme is so far working satisfactorily. It differs from meter zones in other London boroughs in that there is generally enough off-street parking space to meet demand.

Sir R. Russell: Does the Minister agree that in view of the amount of taxation imposed on motorists, the extension of this kind of scheme is more preferable than having meters, particularly from the point of view of street parking?

Mr. Swingler: This kind of scheme is possible when there is an equation of demand and supply for parking space. We want to do everything to encourage boroughs to create more off-street parking space, but in some places it is not possible to produce this equation. Therefore, it is necessary to resort to other techniques.

Rock Ferry Bypass

Mr. Brooks: asked the Minister of Transport at what date his Department first held discussions with the Birkenhead County Borough over the proposed Rock Ferry bypass; what subsequent consultations have taken place on the proposal; and what is the present position regarding its completion.

Mr. Bob Brown: A proposal for a Rock Ferry bypass was first put to the Department in March, 1961. Since then we have been consulted about the route of the bypass and about its detailed design. A completion date cannot be forecast until a planning decision has been given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government.

Mr. Brooks: Does my hon. Friend agree that this has dragged on far too long? Has he considered putting a bomb under somebody responsible for the planning process, because this is causing great planning blight and inconvenience to the local authority? Can we be assured that before too long there will be a decision on this long overdue matter?

Mr. Brown: I cannot agree with my hon. Friend. The inclusion of the scheme


in the roads programme is without prejudice to the outcome of the statutory processes. This is a matter for the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.

M5-Exeter (Motorway)

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: asked the Minister of Transport what were the recommendations contained in the joint reports of the Somerset County Council and the consulting engineers, appointed in 1964, to investigate a possible route for a new dual-carriageway road between the present proposed M5 terminus and the vicinity of Exeter, on the question whether it should be built as a special road or as an all-purpose road with restricted access.

Mr. Bob Brown: The joint reports recommended that the road should be built as a motorway.

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: Is it proposed to accept these recommendations? If not, what is it proposed to do?

Mr. Brown: Last month's truck road preparation announcement made provision for the Edithmead-Exeter scheme to be built to motorway standards. A final decision on the standard of the road must, of course, await the results of this assessment in the preparation pool, but there must be a strong presumption that it will be built as a motorway.

Road Developments (Houses)

Mr. Tilney: asked the Minister of Transport when he will announce his decision on the recommendations from the chartered land societies and others on the problems of compensation in relation to highways to owners of houses deleteriously affected by new road developments.

Mr. Swingler: The study of this question is being co-ordinated by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. It has implications of great importance for both public and private developers and the timing of any decision cannot be forecast.

Mr. Tilney: Would the Minister bear in mind, in the meantime, that a blight has fallen over property near to projected urban motorways? Is he aware that many people have put all their savings

into their homes, many of which have become unsaleable?

Mr. Swingler: I am aware of this difficult problem. We are doing our best, under the present law, to overcome it by obtaining clear decisions on these schemes as quickly as we can. As the hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware, there are complex matters concerning the reform of the compensation laws. We are in possession of information on the subject supplied by various societies and this is being considered as rapidly as possible.

Mr. Galbraith: Would the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that at a time when betterment is taxed where "worsement" is caused by the community, good compensation should be paid?

Mr. Swingler: We agree that it is fair to say that the position is not satisfactory at present. While this is a difficult problem in the development of the motorway and roads programme, the whole matter is to be reviewed in all its aspects and we will make a statement as soon as possible.

Motor Vehicles (Night Parking)

Mr. George Jeger: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the confusion caused by the lack of uniformity of regulations governing the parking of vehicles at night without lights in different areas; and whether he will take the necessary steps to eliminate local variations of parking restrictions.

Mr. Bob Brown: We are aware that the present regulations are subject to criticism on various grounds and are considering possible ways of amending them.

Mr. Jeger: Is this matter being considered in consultation with chief constables and officials of the various local authorities to get their co-operation?

Mr. Brown: This type of consideration always has the ear of chief constables and local authorities.

Mr. Brooks: Would my hon. Friend consider tightening up the regulations governing single parking lights on vehicles, because in certain circumstances vehicles so parked may be totally invisible to oncoming traffic?

Mr. Brown: That, too, is a point well worth bearing in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — PORTS

Nationalisation

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Minister of Transport when he now proposes to make a further statement on the nationalisation of the ports.

Mr. Rossi: asked the Minister of Transport what consideration he has given to options, other than nationalisation, for the reorganisation of the ports; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a further statement on Her Majesty's Government's intentions with regard to the future ownership of the docks.

Mr. Marsh: As I said yesterday in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne), I will make a further statement as soon as I have completed my consideration of the views expressed in the consultations we have had.—[Vol. 764, c. 60.]

Mr. Ridsdale: Will the right hon. Gentleman now scrap the ridiculous proposals of his predecessor, which are doctrinaire political nonsense and make no business sense?

Mr. Marsh: I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman is being objective about this.

Mr. Rossi: Will the right hon. Gentleman pay particular regard to the observations of the Rochdale Committee, which seems to propose a formula far less complicated and distracting than nationalisation?

Mr. Marsh: Certainly, in our consultations all the advice tendered will be considered. Of course the Government are committed to taking steps in relation to our ports which, unfortunately, right hon. Members opposite did not take for such a long time, with such dire consequences.

Mr. McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we on this side are eagerly awaiting the proposals of the Government to implement the undertaking to nationalise the ports, but this is important both as a social reform and as an economic necessity?

Mr. Marsh: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the fear that Wisbech port might be adversely affected is causing local concern? Is he further aware that, with the development of the East Anglia and particularly the Peterborough expansion, the Wisbech port will be put to good use?

Mr. Marsh: It is our intention to take all these matters into account. I regret the uncertainty which exists, but on the other hand these are very important proposals.

Mr. Peter Walker: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm whether he is considering the whole future of the basis of organisation of the ports or is considering the form of nationalisation? Presumably he is considering whether or not to nationalise.

Mr. Marsh: I am considering the views expressed in consultations I am having.

Sir H. Harrison: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the very great developments by private enterprise at Felixstowe, which have given great pride to all of us in Suffolk? It would be a tragedy if the port were nationalised in view of these developments.

Mr. Marsh: Certainly I will bear these things in mind.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: asked the Minister of Transport what estimate he has made of the cost of compensation for nationalisation of the ports, as set out by his Department on 7th July, 1967; and whether he will apply the test rate of discount laid down in the Government's Review of Economic and Financial Objectives for Nationalised Industries to this proposed investment.

Mr. Marsh: Proposals for compensation are receiving the detailed consideration to which reference was made in the "working document". It would not be appropriate at this stage to publish any estimate of cost.

Mr. Jenkin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that estimates have been widely quoted of not less than £350 million a year and that it could be £400 million? Does not he recognise that to


issue compensation on this sort of scale at this time in the economic climate would be damaging in the extreme? Will he categorically undertake that this is not what he has in mind?

Mr. Marsh: It is always distressing the extent to which these rumours gain currency among people on either side of the House.

Mr. Ridley: What would the right hon. Gentleman expect nationalisation of the docks, as outlined in his predecessor's programme, to cost?

Mr. Marsh: As I tried to explain earlier, the question of compensation is not determined and it would not be appropriate to publish any estimate at this stage.

Mr. McNamara: When considering the question of compensation, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the tremendous amount of public money which has gone into the ports for their development and that many people have profited from publicly invested money.

Mr. Marsh: One of the problems is that hon. Gentlemen opposite—I make no criticism—tend to have a doctrinal blockage on the matter of public ownership. There is a general expressed and agreed need to do something about the ports. It is a pity that they did not do anything previously.

Mr. Peter Walker: Is the Minister aware that we on this side are delighted that, unlike his predecessor, he has no such doctrinal blockage?

Mr. Marsh: I can only refer, as I did the other day, to the quotation I gave, that philosophers have attempted to interpret the world when what matters is to change it. That is what we, on this side, are concerned to do.

Civil Dock Facilities, Portsmouth

Mr. Judd: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will now initiate a survey into the possible extension of civil dock facilities in Portsmouth with special reference to under-utilised naval facilities.

Mr. Swingler: It is in the first place for the harbour authority and potential users to consider what is required, and

we know of no demand for further commercial port facilities at Portsmouth in addition to the recently opened quay.

Mr. Judd: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are considerable capital resources and wharfage in the naval dockyard which are at present grossly underused? The small civil port already in operation is proving highly successful, and there is every reason to believe that we could have a thriving port in Portsmouth, particularly as we extend our economic relations with Europe.

Mr. Swingler: My hon. Friend may be right, but we have no evidence of the need for further civil port development at Portsmouth. If evidence is put before us by the Harbour Authority we shall be delighted to go into the matter with the Secretary of State for Defence. However, we must have evidence of the need.

Aberdeen Harbour

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of the plans for the improvements in Aberdeen Harbour.

Mr. Swingler: Planning the improvement of Aberdeen Harbour is the responsibility of the Aberdeen Harbour Board, which I will ask them to write to my hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister realise that these harbour improvements have become much more urgent since devaluation, in view of the need to increase exports and the need for better communications with the Continent? Will he give the Harbour Commissioners and other bodies concerned such assistance as he can to enable the work to be completed?

Mr. Swingler: I am advised that there are no proposals before us at the moment. My right hon. Friend need only deal with proposals costing more than £500,000. I understand that the Aberdeen authorities are considering a number of improvements which would cost less than this amount and which would, therefore, not be the concern of the Minister. However, if my hon. and learned Friend has particular matters in mind, I trust that he will bring them to our attention, and I assure him that they will be looked into.

Post Office (Dispute)

Mr. Bryan: (by Private Notice) asked the Postmaster-General whether, following this morning's meeting between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and representatives of the Union of Post Office Workers, he will make a statement regarding the threatened strike of Post Office workers.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Roy Mason): Representatives of the Union of Post Office Workers came to see my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and me this morning. They reminded us of the time that had elapsed since negotiations with the Post Office on the pay research survey for postal and telegraph officers had reached an advanced stage, and said that it was difficult for their members to understand why an offer could not now be made.
I told the union on 2nd May that I hoped to be able to make an offer within two weeks or so. My right hon. Friend and I were conscious of the fact that the difficulty was one of timing rather than of the substance of an offer or its relationship to the Government's prices and incomes policy. My right hon. Friend therefore told the representatives of the union that he would use his best endeavours to make it possible for offers to be made by Monday, 13th May on this and other Civil Service pay research surveys currently under negotiation.
The representatives of the union welcomed this statement, which, they said, would enable them to call off the industrial action. The House will, I know, be glad to learn that the matter has thus been brought to a satisfactory conclusion.

Mr. Bryan: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that we on this side of the House are extremely pleased that strike action, with all its consequent hardship both to the public and Post Office workers, has been avoided? With a view to avoiding a repetition of the unnecessary—and, I think for him, very humiliating—events of the last week, may I ask him two questions?
First, did not the Chancellor completely undermine the authority of the Postmaster-General by treating him literally as a puppet throughout the talks

and by himself coming to an agreement with the union which he could easily have authorised the Postmaster-General to make
?
Secondly, why did the Postmaster-General literally provoke the union with such vague statements such as that he would start negotiations in two weeks or so, when, as it now transpires, as we always suspected, it was nothing but bureaucratic rigidity and pig-headedness which prevented an earlier date being given?

Mr. Mason: It is understandable that the hon. Member's lack of experience and naivety in this affair leads him to make such ridiculous statements as that. He is fully aware that 350,000 people are involved, all having to have negotiations flowing through the Civil Service Pay Research Unit surveys.
The talks started in Janaury this year. From the U.P.W. point of view, the initial talks concluded on 8th March. The union's representatives felt a little frustrated that an offer was not forthcoming quicker than hitherto, but on 2nd May I promised that an offer would be forthcoming within two weeks or so, thus giving my right hon. Friend and me the necessary latitude to be able to settle all at once.
We have now been able to do that. I should have thought that this would be entirely satisfactory to the House.

Mr. Randall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the House and the public will welcome the reasons being removed for the frustration of the counter clerks and that so far as the reasonable demand that they have made is concerned the House is glad that this has now been met? May I thank my right hon. Friend for the part he has played, and also wish him well in the negotiations which must follow?

Mr. Mason: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for those remarks. Of coure, negotiations will have to follow when the offer has been made. I wish to pay my respects to the Union of Post Office Workers' representatives. They have made their representations in a moderate manner both to the Chancellor and me and have been most statesmanlike in making the representations.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the whole question of redefining the responsibility of the Postmaster-General and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in these matters so as to prevent this kind of problem arising in future?

Mr. Mason: That is not necessary. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has overall responsibility for deciding awards to 350,000 civil servants, of whom the postal and telegraph officers are only 22,000. We were both involved, but my right hon. Friend has overall responsibility, as the hon. Member should be aware.

Mr. Shinwell: Will my right hon. Friend explain, in view of the abysmal ignorance of some hon. Members opposite, that there never has been a case in my experience when public servants have asked for an increase in salary and the Treasury did not intervene?

Mr. Mason: Yes, I suppose that in many instances it is very right that the Treasury should. It had some responsibility in this respect.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in his talks with the Post Office Workers' Union, the question of increased productivity arose, because I understand that the Chancellor's directive was that there should be no wage increases unless they were matched by an increase in productivity?

Mr. Mason: A productivity agreement with U.P.W. is an entirely different matter. It has always proved to be very difficult for the white collar grades and clerks behind counters to increase productivity, but in October last year the U.P.W. decided to start a productivity agreement. It has already proved that it can increase productivity. It has effected savings and it is due for a productivity deal separate from the award that we are now making.

Mr. Alfred Morris: While congratulating my right hon. Friend on the important part he has played in this difficult and unfortunate episode affecting one of the most pacific groups of working people, may I ask whether, to prevent this happening in future, he will consider accelerating negotiations on future reports from the Civil Service Pay Research Unit?

Mr. Mason: That is not a responsibility of mine, but no doubt the postal and telegraph officers concerned will be watching with a great deal of interest the progress of the Post Office Status Bill, which will be coming before the House later this year.

Mr. Sharples: May I ask whether or not the offer made falls within the criteria laid down by the Prices and Incomes White Paper?

Mr. Mason: Yes, the offer will not breach the incomes policy at all.

EDUCATION (STUDENT GRANTS)

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Shirley Williams): With permission, I wish to make a statement about student grants.
Copies of the Report of the Advisory Panel on Student Maintenance Grants, which has considered the changes necessary to maintain the real value of awards to undergraduate and equivalent students, have been placed in the Library of the House and will be on sale tomorrow.
My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Secretary of State for Scotland intend to increase the grants to these students from next September. The basic grant will be increased by £25 to £395 in London and at Oxford and Cambridge Universities, and by £20 to £360 elsewhere. For students living at home the increase will be by £15 to £290 and for those resident at colleges of education in England and Wales by £7 to £163.
All the supplementary grants and allowances, paid in respect of dependants and for a variety of different reasons, are, with some slight adjustments, to be increased by the full amounts recommended by the Advisory Panel. There will also be improved grants for certain widows and divorced and separated wives, while the grants for part-time teacher training students will be increased by £90 to £180 for day students and by £70 to £100 for evening students.
Other changes will include a revised scale of parental contributions. The starting point will be raised from £700 to £900. Parents with a residual income


of more than £1,100 a year will pay a little more than at present, but the increase in parental contribution will not exceed £6 a year, except for those affected by the following additional change. There will be a reduction from £200 to £100 in the maximum allowance which can be claimed in assessing parental contribution in respect of fees of a child attending school.
I should like to take this opportunity of again paying tribute to the responsible attitude of the student unions throughout our discussions with them.
Full particulars of the changes proposed will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The necessary Regulations will be laid before the House in due course.
Revised rates of grant for postgraduate students, which will also come into effect on 1st September, will be announced later this year.

Sir E. Boyle: As the hon. Lady knows, we remain unhappy on this side about, in the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), this arbitrary and unselective action by the Government. May I ask the hon. Lady three specific questions? First, since hall fees in the London area alone will rise by as much as £39, and the cost of books will almost certainly rise, will she, even now, consider the requests that we have repeated from this side, that a special review of student grants should be undertaken in 12 months time?
Secondly, would she consider, on the parental contributions, the suggestion that we made for a system of information to parents on how the grant is made up, and their part of it, so that they recognise the importance of making a contribution to the student?
Thirdly, will she institute a thorough review of the discretionary grant system? Lastly, would she also not agree on the importance of this whole subject, and that in the students' own interests they should observe reasonable courtesy and some restraint when listening, to Ministers with which they disagree? And would she not equally agree that intimidatory letters to students when grants are paid should also be regarded as a rather retrograde act?

Mrs. Williams: I would say, first, that it is with regret that the Government

cannot enter into an absolutely definite statement about when the next review will take place, except to say that it will obviously take place within the period of the next three years. It is bound to depend upon economic circumstances.
With regard to the increased charges in certain hostels, of which as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) will know London is an extreme case, we are at the moment discussing the matter with the University Grants Committee, and we hope that some consideration can be given to ways in which economies might be made.
On the point of informing parents of the need for their contributions to be paid, we are already entering into discussions about this and will do everything possible to bring home to parents the necessity for every attention to be given to this, and to make them realise the extreme importance of their contribution.
On the third point, about the discretionary grants, the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, as will the House, that there are strong limitations imposed upon the power of the Secretary of State to intervene in this matter by the terms of the 1962 Education Act. Within the terms of that Act we have gone as far as we possibly can by stressing in circulars to local authorities how much we deplore any great discrepancies in conditions and terms upon which grants are paid. It is difficult for us to go further within the terms of the Act, unless new legislation is brought before the House.
On the last points raised by the right hon. Gentleman, I would certainly share, as someone who in a mild way has encountered this, his concern. He may have had in mind the treatment suffered by his hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) and what can be extreme student action. We accept that there will be some opinions which students find it very difficult to hear peacefully. Nevertheless, they have an obligation, and it is a profound obligation, to do so however difficult it may be. We must ask them to act as adults if we are expected to treat them as such.
Finally, as I have already said in a recent debate with the right hon. Gentleman, I certainly deplore any action by local authorities which assumes behaviour on the part of students rather than discovering whether the behaviour has been perpetrated, and whether university authorities feel that action must be taken.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Can the Minister tell us what extra grants are to be paid to widows and separated wives?

Mrs. Williams: It is the intention that all widows, divorced women and separated wives, who do not come under the regulations enabling them to have extra grants, because they are students who have earned in the past, will be entitled, if they have one dependant or more, to claim either £100 extra grant or £100 disregarded income. This, we hope, will be a major contribution to one of the most hard-pressed groups of students in the country at present.

Mr. David Steel: Can the hon. Lady clarify her earlier reply when she said that she would promise no further review within the next three years? Does that apply to the cuts that have been made in the Advisory Panel's recommendations?
Secondly, may I ask whether this statement means that the Government, as a matter of fundamental policy, have abandoned any hope of implementing the recommendations of the Anderson Committee? Are the Government prepared to continue a system of two classes of students in our universities—those dependent on the State and those dependent on their parents?

Mrs. Williams: I do not entirely follow the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question, because it was a strong recommendation of the Anderson Committee that these parental contributions should continue. With reference to the Anderson Committee, we have maintained a system of parental contribution. This is not to say, and I think the House would agree with this, that one would not wish to make some modification in parental contribution. The present total of parental contribution is £30 million, and it is difficult to see how at present one would wish to make this

the top priority in terms of improving student grants.
I wish to make it clear again that I cannot promise that there will be an early review. This is bound to depend upon the economic situation. Of course, if that situation permits us to bring in an earlier review, we would be very ready to do so. My remarks do apply to the decision that has been made to bring into force half the recommended increases of the Brown Committee, which will replace our decision on the 1968 review, which follows three years after the 1965 review of student grants.

Dr. Gray: While welcoming what my hon. Friend is to do for widows, divorced and separated women, will she also say what she is to do for married women and students who marry while at university?

Mrs. Williams: With regard to married women, my hon. Friend will have noticed that the position is the same as at present, in other words the grant has not been altered. As to married women who are mature students, there will be a substantial increase in the grant, and the same is true of those married women, admittedly mostly separated wives, who have two households to maintain.
With regard to the position of students who marry during the course of their period at university or in other education, we are still following up a recommendation of the Anderson Committee, which was that they should not then be regarded as independent of their parents if they had not reached the age of 25, or if they had not married before their course began.
The reasons for this, I suspect, are that one does not want to put a student in a position when it is a positive incentive to a student to marry during the course of their education, because there is some reason to believe that wastage is higher among married students than among single students.

Mr. Maudling: Can the hon. Lady give us any figure for the costs of the recommendations?

Mrs. Williams: The estimated cost of carrying out the Brown Report recommendations in full was £11 million. Since they are being carried out by half the cost will be £5,500,000.

Mr. Dalyell: What is the reason behind the Government's apparent decision to continue what appears to be favourable treatment for Oxford and Cambridge?

Mrs. Williams: The reasons for giving favourable treatment to Oxford and Cambridge, and it should be said, London, are based simply on the cost of college charges and accommodation in these towns. This is borne out by the studies made by the Brown Committee, which showed that there is still a sharp distinction in the charges between these three universities and other universities in the country.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Has any further consideration been given to the particularly difficult position of medical students?

Mrs. Williams: While the allowance for medical students in terms of equipment, remains the same, the amount which may be paid in each week over the normal 30-week upon which the grant is based, and which normally applies to medical and veterinary students—and for that matter to any other students whose normal term is longer than 30 weeks—will be added to by the increased attendance allowance beyond 30 weeks.

Mr. Leadbitter: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is some considerable hardship for those students who have grants made to them on the basis of a parental contribution calculation, but who do not receive that parental contribution? Although the numbers may be relatively small, the hardship is one requiring further study. Can she tell the House what discussions she might have so as to make that parental contribution obligatory?

Mrs. Williams: We hope that the increase from £700 to £900 of the initial income for parents before they are obliged to pay a parental contribution, and the further concessions to those between £900 and £1,100, in reducing the parental contribution, will do something to remove the hardship to students, many of whose parents are most needy of all. We shall have to see what the effects of this are. There is good reason to think that some hardship is experienced by students whose parents earn considerably more than this minimum.
As I have said in answer to the right hon. Gentleman, we are now considering,

with the local authorities, how we can best bring to the parents' attention the necessity for this contribution to be paid. I will be glad to answer a further question on this at a later stage.

Mr. Biffen: The only reasonable inference to be drawn from the request of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) for a special review is that this would lead to a further increase of public expenditure. Could the right hon. Lady say whether she is prepared to consider soon a sympathetic review with a view to deciding whether or not student loans would be a more satisfactory system for financing university education than grants?

Mrs. Williams: Undoubtedly, consideration has been given at various times in the past by Governments of both parties to the question of student loans. I must make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend and I have very little sympathy with the concept of student loans. The system we have enables us to have intense first degree courses which are short, and which have one of the lowest wastage rates in Europe. These courses enable a large proportion of children from the homes of manual workers to attend university, and they seem from the point of view of cost efficiency to be outstandingly successful.

Mr. McNamara: I welcome the supplementary benefits which are being given under the new award. Is my hon. Friend aware that the problem of the students is the increase in residence fees? When can we have a statement about her negotiations with the University Grants Committee on this? This is the point which niggles students more than most.

Mrs. Williams: My hon. Friend has undoubtedly knowledge of students' problems. It is perfectly true that this is one of the things that niggles students most. It is a matter for each individual university to balance its hostel charges. Therefore, I cannot go as far as he wishes. I can only tell him that we are keeping the matter under review with the University Grants Committee. I would have to consider the question in the light of the fact that universities are ultimately responsible for their own finances.

Following is the information:

1. Following are the particulars of the grants to be paid from 1st September, 1968 to students taking first degree and comparable courses with, for comparison, the present rates of grant:—


(a) Basic Maintenance Grant



Living in College, Hall, or lodgings:—




Now £
From 1st September, 1968 £


At London, Oxford and Cambridge Universities and other further education establishments in the London area
370
395


Elsewhere
340
360


Living at home
275
290


Resident at colleges of education in England and Wales
156
163

(c) Grants to part-time Teacher training students



Now £
From 1st September, 1968 £


Part-time day students
90
180


Part-time evening students
30
100


2. Other adjustments to the grant arrangements will be made as follows from 1st September, 1968:

(a) Parental contribution


The starting point at which a parental contribution is required is to be raised from £700 to £900. At £900 of residual income the contribution will be £20, and this will increase at the rate of £1 for each £10 of additional residual income. Below is an outline of the new and existing scales:—


Residual income £
Parental contribution now £
Parental contribution from 1st September, 1968 £


800
16
0


900
24
20


1,000
32
30


1,100
40
40

 1,400
64
70


3,000
224
230


(b) Allowance for child in fee-paying school


In assessing parental contribution the maximum allowance for the fees and other educational expenses paid by the parent in respect of children attending school will be reduced from £200 to £100 for each child.


(c) Widows, divorced women and separated wives who do not make a claim under Regulation 14 of the University and Other Awards Regulations, 1965 and who have at least one dependant will be able to claim either a further £100 disregard of income or an additional grant of £100.


A woman who is widowed or divorced or separated during a course is to be allowed to retain married status for grant purposes if this is to her advantage.


The additional disregards of income at present allowed to widowed mothers attending colleges of education are to be extended to widowed mothers attending universities and establishments of further education.

(d) Mature Students


 (i) The calculation to establish claims for mature student's grant under Regulation 14 of the University and Other Awards Regulation 1965 will be based on an assumed personal maintenance grant of £360 for all claimants. Other allowances will be added in the normal way to arrive at the maximum grant to which a student is eligible.


 (ii) Claims under Regulation 14 relating to earnings during periods earlier than six years before the 1st September of the academic year in which a course is due to begin will not be accepted for new awards tenable on or after 1st September, 1968.


(e) Non-resident college of education students


Non-resident students at colleges of education in England and Wales (excluding those living in "approved lodgings") will receive grants on the same basis as university students; i.e. they will receive a basic grant related to 30 weeks attendance, and additional payments at the normal rate for periods of attendance in excess of 30 weeks.


(f) Married women students


Married women students who are living in the husband's home will be treated as a separate category of student, and will receive a basic grant of £275 a year. Extra attendance allowance at the normal rate will be paid for periods of attendance in excess of 30 weeks. These arrangements are to apply to all married women students who are receiving awards under the University and Other Awards Regulation 1965, or the "Arrangements for Teacher Training" (Department Circular 18/66).


3. The basic maintenance grants are to be increased by half the amounts recommended by the Advisory Panel. The total cost of the increases in the basic and supplementary grants, when taken with the other adjustments, will be about half the cost of meeting in full all the increases recommended by the Advisory Panel.

QUESTIONS

Mr. Speaker: I have a brief statement to make about Questions.
I see from the OFFICIAL REPORT that, in replying yesterday to a point of order raised by the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), I may inadvertently have given the impression that the order in which Questions are printed on the Order Paper is determined by chance, and chance alone. This is not the case.
As hon. Members who have visited the Table Office will know, as soon as a Question has been agreed to be in order it is placed in the lowest-numbered of a series of blue pouches, which are sent to the printer at regular intervals, the lowest number going first. The sequence in which the Questions in each pouch are printed depends to some extent on the order in which they are removed from the pouch at the printing works, and it is in this respect only that chance prevails.
Nevertheless, hon. Members may be assured that a Question contained in a later pouch is never printed above one for answer on the same date which was sent over in an earlier pouch. Questions for the Prime Minister are treated in exactly the same way as other Questions.
The system is described in detail in paragraph 3 of the Fifth Report of the Select Committee on Procedure, of last Session, and in the answers to questions 81 to 83 of the evidence upon which that

Report was based. In a later paragraph the Committee recommended that, on balance, the system should not be altered. The House took note of that Report in the debate on Procedure on 14th November last year. I am informed by the Table Office that the practice has not since then been changed in any respect, nor would any such change be permitted without the House having been apprised of the proposal to change it.

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. I am grateful for your interest in the matter, Mr. Speaker. May I inform you, Sir, and the House, that my Question was placed on the Order Paper some time before another Question, which was called before mine. How this happened I do not know. I do not know whether it is chance, whether it is a gamble. In any event, it does not matter, because the Written Answer I received from the Prime Minister was thoroughly unsatisfactory.

Sir G. Nabarro: Further to that point of order. Would it not be fair to ask you, Mr. Speaker, to observe that Privy Councillors are always in a position of precedence in the fashion in which they are called on the Floor of the House? Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman has nothing whatever to complain about.

Mr. Shinwell: Will you, Mr. Speaker, correct the hon. Gentleman? Is it not the case that hon. Members are called,


whether they are Privy Councillors or would-be Privy Councillors, at your discretion, and that we accept your discretion?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I was about to correct the hon. Gentleman if the right hon. Gentleman had allowed me to correct him. There is no precedence for Privy Councillors at Question Time.

BILLS PRESENTED

GAS AND ELECTRICITY

Bill to increase the statutory limits on the amounts outstanding in respect of borrowings by the Gas Council and Area Gas Boards; to provide for the borrowing by the Electricity Council, the Scottish Electricity Boards and the Gas Council of money in foreign currency; to enable the said Councils and Boards and other electricity authorities to furnish overseas aid; to increase the number of members of the Gas Council; and for connected purposes, presented by Mr. R. J. Gunter; supported by Mr. Peter Shore, Mr. William Ross, Mr. George Thomas, Mr. Reginald Prentice, Mr. Harold Lever, and Mr. Reginald Freeson; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 148.]

HOVERCRAFT

Bill to make further provision with respect of hovercraft presented by Mr. Anthony Crosland; supported by Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn, Mr. Richard Marsh, Mr. Anthony Greenwood, Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu, the Attorney General, and Mr. David Ennals, read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 147.]

Orders of the Day — TRADE DESCRIPTIONS (No. 2) BILL [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

3.57 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I have, as is my wont, posted the list of selected Amendments. It has since occurred to me that we might take Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 together, but I do not insist on that. Perhaps both sides will consider the suggestion before we come to them.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order. May I ask for your guidance and help, Mr. Speaker? I find myself in a most extraordinary situation. I have to sit at four o'clock this afternoon on the Standing Committee on the Divorce Reform Bill, and I am due to move two Amendments on that Bill during the afternoon. At the same time, I have two Amendments to the Trade Descriptions (No. 2) Bill, which are of some importance and which you have selected.
I cannot be in two places at once, neither do I know, if I were to be free upstairs, how I could know when to come downstairs when my Amendments are reached. I wonder whether you, Mr. Speaker, can help me? Can a message be sent to me upstairs when my Amendments are about to be reached on the Floor of the House? I could then come down and move them.

Mr. Speaker: I am in considerable sympathy with the point which the hon. Gentleman raises. It has always been a point of some difficulty when an hon. Member is torn between his duty on the Floor of the House and his duty to the Committee upstairs, especially if the hon. Gentleman is in the difficult position of being responsible for Amendments up there and Amendments down here.
The difficulty is that we cannot prophesy the length of time that debates will take. Perhaps he could keep in touch with one of his hon. Friend's. The Amendments must come in their proper place on the Notice Paper. I am advised that an hon. Friend can move the Amendment for him, but I do not think that is really what the hon. Gentleman wants.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I have been so busy during the last few days in the House, running from one Committee to another, Mr. Speaker, that I have not been able to advise my hon. and learned Friend on the Front Bench of the substance behind my Amendments. Nevertheless, I wish to speak shortly about the Amendments, and I think that I ought to be able to do so.
This will be an increasing difficulty for hon. Members. The Government must recognise that the business of Committees upstairs cannot clash with business on the Floor of the House when back benchers are involved in seeking to put forward Amendments to Bills in Committee or on Report.

Dame Irene Ward: Further to that point of order. When you are considering the matter which my hon. Friend has put to you, Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to look at the situation in which some hon. Members are engaged to sit on three Committees at the same time? Would you tell us how an hon. Member can sit on three Committees at the same time? Would you not agree that this is absolutely ridiculous, and contrary to proper Parliamentary procedure?

Mr. Speaker: There was a great Speaker called Speaker Onslow. I do not think that even he could have answered the last question but one which the hon. Lady has put to me. All that I can offer the hon. Lady is sympathy. The arrangement of the business of the House is a matter for the Government and the Opposition through the usual channels.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: Further to the point of order. This has become something of a scandal. My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby; (Mr. Michael Shaw) and I are engaged in the Finance Bill Committee upstairs. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) is engaged in the Divorce Bill Committee. Almost every hon. Member, certainly on the Opposition side, who wishes to be present in the Chamber has had duties imposed on him by the Government, and it is becoming more than flesh and blood can stand.
May I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, as the guardian of our liberties, to make

representations to the Government, even if at this late hour nothing can be done, to ensure that this sort of situation is not repeated and made even worse?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): Further to the point of order. Is it not almost inevitable that if hon. Members are to play a large part in Government business they will have a great deal more to do in Committees and on the Floor of the House? Is not this one way in which Members can keep an eye on the Executive?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady is addressing an argument which she must take up with her hon. Friends and the Opposition, not with the Chair.

Mr. R. H. Turton: Further to the point of order. In the old days, when there were not Committees sitting upstairs and debates taking place on the Floor of the House at the same time, an arrangement was made whereby annunciators were installed in the Library, the Smoking Room and the Tea Room so that hon. Members knew what was going on. Under the present Government, we have the extraordinary difficulty of Committees sitting at the same time as debates are taking place in the Chamber. Would you, Mr. Speaker, consider whether an annunciating system could be installed in those Committee rooms where Government business is being taken at the same time as business is being taken in the House?

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the Leader of the House, not for Mr. Speaker.

Clause 2.

TRADE DESCRIPTION.

4.0 p.m.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 13, at the beginning to insert:
'approval by any person or'.
This Amendment would alter subsection (1,g) so as to expand the matters which may form the subject of a trade description to include indications as to the approval of goods by any person. The Bill as drafted covers indications as to the conformity of goods with a type approved by any person, and, although


the distinction between these two sorts of indication may appear a little subtle, we think that there is one and that the Clause could usefully be widened to cover both of them.
The sort of case which we have in mind is where a salesman of some sort of educational book falsely claims that it is approved by a reputable body—for instance, a local education authority. I am advised that this could scarcely be regarded as an indication that the book conforms with a type approved, but that it is rather an indication that the literary content of the book, and thus every book having that literary content, was approved.
Since we are seeking by paragraph (g) to deal as far as possible with false claims about approval of any goods, it seems sensible to make this extension to cover the special case of books.

Mr. Michael Shaw: We agree with the Amendment. It is pleasant that we should start our proceedings with an agreement.
I must draw attention to the change on the Government Front Bench since we last considered the Bill. Without wishing to interfere with the arrangements of the Government. I should like to say how much we regret parting with the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling), for whom we have very great regard and affection. We wish him well in his new position and express the hope that, since he is present today, he will give us the real "lowdown" on the Bill and will feel in no way inhibited from criticising whatever he may have said during earlier stages.
I have only one point to raise. Suppose that there is a description to the effect that Mr. X always uses "Blippo". I hope that there is no such product; I do not know of one. By inference, that may be taken to mean that Mr. X gives approval to "Blippo". It may mean that only that product is sold at his local village shop. Would such a description, improperly used, be caught by the Amendment? It would be misleading if it were, but does the fact that somebody is said always to use a certain product indicate approval?

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I join the hon. Gentleman in his remarks about our sadness at losing my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) as Minister of State. His great efficiency and wide knowledge of this subject was not only of great help to the House, but a great asset to me. I pay tribute to him for the kindness and warmth which he showed to me personally.
The Amendment is specifically intended to cover a particular case, namely, books. The sort of case to which the hon. Gentleman referred would not be caught in this instance.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Tony Gardner: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 18, at end insert:
(k) former or usual price.

Mr. Speaker: We are taking at the same time Amendment No. 33, in page 6, line 26, leave out Clause 11.

Mr. Gardner: The effect of the Amendment would be to include the question of price within the general definitions of "trade description" in this Clause. The purpose is obvious—to apply the general provisions in the Bill to false or misleading statements about price and thus obviate the need for Clause 11.
When I came to the House this morning, and picked up the Amendments from the Vote Office, I was surprised, if not overwhelmed, to see the support which it had gained from the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) and his colleagues. I assure them and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary whom I am very pleased to see leading for us on the Front Bench, that the purpose of the Amendment is to give the Government and all of us one more chance to reconsider the very difficult issues which we discussed at great length in Committee.
There is no doubt that price and statements about price constitute the one issue which disturbs consumers most. Every day consumers are confronted with advertisements and blandishments to buy articles which they may think are a good buy. They may be told that there is 2d. off, that an article is cheaper than elsewhere or cheaper than it was yesterday. In this age of hustle and bustle, the consumer is subject to one-shop shopping in


a supermarket as distinct from shopping around.
I wish that more consumers had time to shop around. If they did so, they would get much better bargains. The housewife tends to do most of her shopping perhaps on a Friday, or some other late shopping night, and rushes round the supermarket counters and picks up what she thinks is the best bargain. This is impulse buying. She has no means of telling whether she is getting a bargain, or what the normal price is, because, following the abolition of resale price maintenance, "normal price" is virtually a meaningless phrase. Therefore, she has to take the word of the advertiser, manufacturer or retailer.
I do not wish to rehearse the long arguments which we had in Committee. One thing we are all clear about is that it is very difficult to draw up any legislation to cover effectively this problem of misleading descriptions as to price. None of us in this House can claim that he has found the solution. I am sure that my hon. Friend will admit that the solution which the Government have now found—and I welcome the Amendment which has been put down to Clause 11—is still not the best possible solution, because we are dealing with very difficult matters. So when we come to look at this problem following the abolition of resale price maintenance we have to face the fact that it will be very difficult to enforce any solution.
My personal view is that Clause 11 will be very difficult to enforce and will give grounds for considerable legal argument. That is the last thing we want in an Act of Parliament which is protecting the consumer by setting standards of trading which are obvious and simple. We should ask ourselves whom we want to catch. We are not concerned here with a trader who makes a mistake about price. We are not concerned at all with that kind of action. What we are concerned about is the trader, advertiser or manufacturer who blatantly sets out to deceive by making a false statement about what the price usually or formerly was.
We cannot really employ the words "usually was" for the reasons I suggested earlier, but we can compare the

price offered today with the price offered yesterday or some time ago. I do not think that it is our intention that there should be a great deal of prosecution. We have said many times on Second Reading and in Committee that our intention is to establish a code which the vast majority of people will readily honour, and to back it up with the necessary sanctions.
I believe that if we could amend Clause 2 in the way suggested in this Amendment what would happen would be that if there were one or two manufacturers, advertisers or traders who blatantly set out to deceive the consumer in matters of price they would be prosecuted, and that would be the end of the matter. The general provisions of the Bill would be there as a safety net, as it were, but the warning would have been given and the standard set, and most people would accept it.
It is extremely difficult. One thinks of the trader, manufacturer or advertiser suggesting that the previous price was 2s. 6d. and the present price 2s. 1d. and that, therefore, the housewife is getting a bargain; or of the case referred to earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Haseldine), of the parcel, hamper or special offer coming in a bundle advertised at the unusual price of 36s. and when one prices the individual articles one finds they can be bought today for 30s. These are the kinds of cases, for they are blatant, which I think would be subject to prosecution. Therefore, I believe that this can be achieved by this simple Amendment to Clause 2 of the Bill.
I do not know what the intention of the hon. and learned Member for Darwen and his hon. Friends is. I can only say that our intention was to give the Government this little extra opportunity for us all to get together in considering what the final solution might be. I certainly do not intend, on a Bill which I support wholeheartedly, to oppose the Minister, but I hope that after the dicussion we are having this afternoon she will find it possible to take the matter back again and use the opportunities in another place to consider whether Clause 11 or Clause 2 would be the best way of tackling this problem.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I have great pleasure in supporting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner), who contributed greatly to our discussions upstairs. We are discussing with Amendment 3, which, in practice, does what the Molony Committee recommended should be done in this difficult and complicated matter, Amendment 33, which seeks to delete the long, complicated and admittedly unsatisfactory Clause 11 and thus restore the Bill to what it should be.
I rather gathered from the hon. Member that he was not very much inclined to press his Amendment. We shall press it as hard as we are able, but without his assistance we doubt somehow that we shall be able to carry the day, alas. Therefore, I would ask that we might also have a Division on Amendment 33, because it is our view that it is better that the Bill should contain nothing about pricing and prices, than that it should contain something which we think will damage the chances of price reduction. We hope, therefore, that when the time comes for Amendment 33 to be put to the voice you will permit us a vote, also, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman had already made this request to me privately. I have given some consideration to the matter and although it is a starred Amendment I am willing to allow a Division on Amendment 33 when we come to it.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I am very much obliged, Sir. I think that we are all grateful for that opportunity.
I said that we were afraid that there was a great danger, if Clause 11 remained in the Bill, even in the amended form which the hon. Lady proposes, that price reductions that might have been made would not be made. I will summarise my reason for thinking this. Clause 11, which we seek to delete, makes it an offence and a false description for a retailer to claim that the price at which he is offering goods now is less than either the recommended price or the price at which the goods or goods of the same description were previously offered by him.
It is the interaction of these two bases which presents the danger because any retailer will be nervous about reducing

his own price—something which we all wish him to do and hope he will be encouraged to do—if by so doing he sets too low a base figure, so that when there is a manufacturer's reduction of price he dare not put it on the market because he will have to sell at a lower price still. I gave an instance of that in the Committee, which I will repeat. Supposing the normal price of an article, whether recommended or not, were 2s. and the retailer chose, nevertheless, to cut it—which we all encourage him to do—to 1s. 10d. Then the manufacturer came along with a production campaign or a sales campaign and produced a pack with the legend "Threepence off".
In those circumstances, the retailer would be in danger if he sold it at 1s. 9d. because that would be only 1d. off his previous cut price. He would have to sell it at 1s. 7d., unless he made it very clear in the form of a rather elaborate statement on the counter of the difference between his price and the manufacturer's or recommended price, and he might not be disposed to do that. That being so, he would be disinclined to knock the 2d. off the 2s., making it 1s. 10d., lest he establish too low a basis for future price reductions.
There are many alternative examples which I could give, and have given. Where there is an increase, in Purchase Tax the base may have been established too low, thus putting the ordinary retailer in some danger unless he goes into elaborate explanations of what he is doing—the sort of explanations which it would be too much to expect him to do.
We are happy to see the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) here, if only one the third row of benches. We hope that he will give us his mature considerations. In Committee, he said:
We have tried to meet that problem, but I am not going to say at this stage that we have succeeded in doing so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 26th March, 1968; c. 231.]
That has been the burden of the speeches of Government spokesmen both here and in another place. At every stage we have been promised something which recognises the difficulty to which I have referred as well as the other difficulties facing retailers and manufacturers,


but all that we have had are further elaborations of the Clause instead of a clean sweep of it.
The Government continue to adhere to the exploded phrase "a recommended price". Everybody knows that recommended prices are on their way out. The Government continue to pile complication upon complication, and although the latest example is not so bad, the piling of complication upon complication will so frighten the trade that reductions will not be made when they should be.
Furthermore, as was explained by one hon. Gentleman opposite in Committee, the provision on recommended prices will not hit the bogus recommended price when it is one which nobody adopts. The hon. Gentleman instanced the case of a well-known drill for use in the home. It is known that the recommended price is pitched far too high, and it is never sold at that price. It is always reduced.
The public get a completely false impression. Many people are deceived by that, yet the retailer will continue to get away with it, even after the various elaborations of Clause 11, whereas he will be caught if the Amendment is accepted, because, instead of the Bill trying to spell out in many Clauses and subsections the exact way in which deception may be practised, the decision will be left to the courts.
As so often happens, when one seeks perfection one grasps nothing. I fear that that is what has happened here. The case can be elaborated almost ad infinitum, but I do not wish to do that. It is a pity that, on reflection, the Government have not gone back to the Molony approach. That is what the hon. Member for Rushcliffe is seeking to do. That is what we wish to do, and I hope that that is what the House will do.

Mr. George Darling: I am grateful to hon. Members for the kind references which they have made to me. I am pleased to acknowledge my share of the parentage of this excellent Bill. I am sorry that the need to lighten the load of my duties compels me to ask for some relief for the time being. However, I am happy to know that the Bill is in the very capable hands of my hon. Friend the Parliamen-

tary Secretary, who, I am sure, will prove to be an excellent foster parent.
I agree with a great deal of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner), and by the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), about the difficult problem of stopping traders and manufacturers from misleading the public on prices. It is suggested that because the Clause is so clear the reference to misleading statements on prices should appear in it. I invite hon. Member to consider the shape of the Bill as a whole.
Clause 1 says:
Any person who, in the course of a trade or business,—
(a) applies a false trade description to any goods…shall…be guilty of an offence.
Clause 2 says:
A trade description is an indication…of any of the following matters
and it then sets them out—quantity, method of manufacture, composition, fitness for purpose, and so on. I think that it would be inappropriate to include the difficult question of misleading statements on prices in this part of the Bill.
I agree that the way in which Clause 11 proposes to tackle the problem gives cause for some concern. The hon. and learned Member for Darwen quoted my remarks in Committee when I said that I was not sure whether, even with the Clause in its amended form, we had satisfactorily solved the problem. But whether we allow Clause 11 to go through, or whether we delete it—and I hope that it will go through in its present form—I still think that it would be inappropriate to tackle the problem under Clause 2.
The hon. and learned Member for Darwen said that we could confidently leave the matter to the courts. I shall not embarrass him by quoting what he said in Committee about magistrates' and other courts. He is not consistent. He was suggesting then—and I think rightly—that we must give guidance to the courts on the more difficult matters dealt with in the Bill. I can see all sorts of complications arising if we say to the courts that an aggrieved customer has suggested that he has been misled by a statement on prices, and leave it to them to decide the issue.
The hon. and learned Gentleman tabled an Amendment to try to assist the court


by suggesting that they should have regard to what would be a reasonable price. I shall not go over the arguments that were advanced. The hon. and learned Gentleman will recollect that the criticism of his approach was that it would be difficult for the courts to decide what was a reasonable price. They would have to investigate all kinds of arrangements that retailers make. I do not think that an action in respect of a misleading statement on prices will succeed in the courts if all that we do is make the Amendment suggested by my hon. Friend.
The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the example that he gave in Committee. He said that if the retail price of something was 2s. and the retailer was selling it at 1s. 10d., and the manufacturer, because he was running an advertising campaign, then printed on the packet "3d. off", the retailer would find himself in a difficult position because, to carry out the terms of the offer, he would have to reduce his price from 1s. 10d. to 1s. 7d. I think that we disposed of that argument in Committee.
4.30 p.m.
We want the manufacturers to state the price on which the reduction is made. What is he reducing? We know very well how advertising campaigns are launched and how they are carried through, and unless there is some fixed retail price the 3d. off has nothing to do with the retail price except that there is the usual retailers margin. It is 3d. off the manufacturers' price, and there is no reason why the manufacturers of mass-produced articles who have used this feature for sales promotion should not tell the public it is 3d. off the manufacturers' price. Why not be honest and say so? Why do they give a rather misleading indication that this is 3d. off every retailer's price. As the hon. and learned Member says, it may not be 3d. off every retailer's price.
There would be nothing I suggest, if Clause 11 stands as it is and we do not accept the suggested addition to Clause 2, to stop the retailer selling goods marked 1s. 10d. at 1s. 9d. and it is still 3d. off the manufacturer's price. He has not committed an offence under the Bill. The arguments which have been put forward fall down unless—and this is what we

want to see happen—the manufacturer indicates that the 3d. off is 3d. off the manufacturer's price and not the retailer's price.

Mr. F. A. Burden: Surely there is very considerable difficulty here. In the first place, the public do not know what the manufacturer's price is. Now that resale price maintenance has been abolished the manufacturer cannot instruct the retailer at what price to sell. If it is 3d. off the manufacturer's price how are the public to know the original manufacturer's price? Unless they know that, or there is a fixed price for retail sale, there is no way of determining it.

Mr. Darling: If the manufacturer wants to see that the retailer is getting the product at 3d. less than the price he paid for it this is something the manufacturer can indicate. The retailer can sell at any price he likes. We have got rid of resale price maintenance.
The hon. and learned Member suggested that recommended prices are on the way out. I do not think they are. The Restrictive Practices Court is now coming to the last round of consideration of resale price maintenance and I think that we have a shrewd idea what the court will decide. Among the last range of goods to be considered by the court we will probably find, if the court's action is what we contemplate, that these goods will have recommended prices attached to them. This means that retailers can sell at any price they like, but for the purpose of national advertising I am convinced that recommended prices will continue.
The practice may grow, but at any rate we have to look at the situation as it is. There are recommended prices for a vast range of goods. If we are to have traders misleading the public about price reductions, and going in for "phoney" price reductions, we have to take note of the fact that there are recommended prices. If the retailer is suggesting that his goods are being sold below a recommended price, and that price is a phoney recommended price, this is something that has to be covered in our legislation.
I do not know whether we are discussing Clause 11 in detail. I assume that we are not, so I will not go into detail, as my hon. Friend will deal with the arguments on Clause 11. I repeat that


the addition my hon. Friend proposes to Clause 2 is quite inappropriate and I do not think that we should try to tackle this problem of misleading prices in Clause 2.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: I am privileged to follow the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) in this brief discussion. For more years than I care to remember he has been the party spokesman on consumer protection and has put his party's case with clarity and courtesy, but I find myself in some disagreement with him this afternoon, particularly on the question of 3d. off.
Like the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner), I find this a particular irritant as a consumer. My own toothpaste for some time has appeared in a little box stamped "3d. off", although it is plain that the toothpaste manufacturer has no idea at what price it is being sold by the chemist. As a protest, although I like the taste, I have given up using this particular toothpaste and shall do so as long as this highly irrelevant information is stamped on the package.
But it seems to me there are a number of weaknesses and defects in Clause 11 as it stands. For instance, it fails to deal with such things as "worth" and "value" which may increase in number unless the Board of Trade uses its powers to define these terms. It is alarming, after the years of discussion that have gone on about this particular Clause, to find the Retail Trading Standards Association, which is, after all, a leading legal watchdog in this field, saying that the inclusion in this Clause, which deals with recommended price, will, in fact, encourage the "wide boys" to make even wider use of "phoney" recommended prices so that at the end of the discussion these people, who have as much experience of bringing prosecutions in this field as any, advise that the whole Clause should be left out. I hope that the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe will be accepted by the Government.

Mr. A. G. F. Hall-Davis: I want to address myself to the omission of Clause 11 and to the question of recommended prices, together with one other matter, which I raised in

Committee and which, in all humility, seems no less valid now than then. In Committee, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling)—and I echo the personal tributes paid to him—said that this was a rather difficult Clause. He said that the Government would take into consideration any doubts expressed and, if need be, would bring in Amendments on Report.
It is, therefore, disappointing, in view of the doubts expressed on both sides of the Committee, that, after a fairly lengthy period of reflection, the Board of Trade has put down only two minor Amendments to Clause 11. That is not a proof that the Clause was adequately drafted and will serve the purpose for which it was introduced. It is not a vote of confidence in the Clause but an indication of the failure of the Government to grasp the fundamental points with which the Clause was intended to deal. It would be a bold decision by the Government if they would delete the Clause and reintroduce it in a thoroughly amended form in another place.
We must be clear that the "so much off" offer can be and often is of great assistance to shoppers and to efficient manufacture and marketing. Because we are trying to safeguard the consumers against abuse of this practice is no reason for blurring the fact that these offers are of great help to many housewives operating on a keen budget and that, by pursuing around the town the temporary reductions, they can make a sizeable reduction in their housekeeping bills.
I think and hope that the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary would agree that these offers help to expand the market and enable productive plant to reach maximum efficiency and stocks to be cleared. They are a thoroughly useful element in what I described in Committee as sophisticated marketing practice. I believe that the Government have failed to take their courage in their hands by leaving "recommended price" in the vague form in which it is still embodied in the Bill as one of the criteria in judging whether a genuine reduction has been made.
In Committee, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) said that, in another


place, three factors were taken into consideration when the Bill was before it. The first was the recommended price, the second the price at which the retailer sold, and the third the price at which other people in the same street or town sold the goods. No doubt with the best of intentions, the Government have omitted the wrong one when reducing these three factors to two.
I am sure that what the consumer really wants to know is what price the goods were available at in her district in the recent past and whether she is being offered a reduction on that price. I do not believe that it is any satisfaction to a consumer to be told that there is 3d. or 6d. off a recommended price when no retailer in her district has been charging that recommended price for weeks or months. By failing to recognise this, the Government have lined themselves up with the doves rather than the hawks in this aspect of consumer protection.
We should have a clear statement that, if the retailer has been offering these goods at a higher price in the recent past and has now reduced it, or happens to have been making his own reductions within the normal practice of his trade and then the goods come into his shop marked with an across-the-board offer by the manufacturer, he will have the protection of being able to say, "This is the price in general use in the vicinity, as I can prove, and therefore I am making a reduction on the general price at which the goods are charged to the consumer in the district in the recent past."
4.45 p.m.
By putting in the recommended price provision in these terms, the Government are perpetuating an out-of-date attitude towards consumer protection, marketing and retailing. This is a dinosaur in the Bill and does not reflect the facts of shopping life. The Government would be doing the consumer a service if they omitted the reference to the recommended price as being a reason for a shopkeeper to be able to defend a ticket which could mean something to the consumer but which would, in fact, mean nothing if the Bill goes through in its present form.
There is another small point which is of significance in retail operation and

which I am sure could be met by some ingenuity on the part of the Government. There appears to be no provision in the Bill to protect a retailer from prosecution if he continues to mark goods as having 3d. or 6d. off in the period immediately following a Budget in which there has been an increase in prices. The right hon. Gentleman, in Committee, gave me an assurance that he would look at this point and said that if he thought it was worth anything the Government would take some action. I believe that this point is worth consideration. Let us take a few practical examples. Let us consider the days immediately following the joyous Budget of last March.
In that Budget, whisky, gin and rum went up by 2s. 6d. a bottle, wines by 6d. or 1s. a bottle, petrol by 4d. a gallon, cigarettes by 2d. a packet and tobacco by 3d. or 4d. an ounce. In addition, the Purchase Tax on furniture, clothing and household utensils went up to 12½ per cent., while confectionery and soft drinks and other things so often subject to price offers went up from 16½ per cent. to 20 per cent. Purchase Tax. I will also quote the case of cosmetics, in deference to the hon. Lady—to use a corny expression, the ladies always have to take it on the chin. The Purchase Tax on cosmetics went up to 50 per cent.
As I read the Bill—and I should be happy to be told I am making an ado about nothing—it would be wrong for a retailer to put up a price by 2s. 6d. to what was perhaps the recommended price before the Budget still marked as a "2/6 off" offer. Yet, in all logic, to the consumer he is as much below the recommended price then as before the tax increase.
I hope that the Government will either give an explicit assurance that they will stamp on any prosecutions in these circumstances or will insert a proviso stating that, in the 28 days after the Budget, any price rises directly resulting from Exchequer decisions are to be disregarded. That would be a simple provision which the public would understand. It would be ridiculous if the "so much off" offers had to cease at the moment when the long-suffering public most need retailers to make some reductions in order to offset the ever-increasing appetite of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Norman Haseldine: I support the Amendment, although I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis) in his remarks. While I agree with a great deal of what he has to say about the problem of reduced prices, I felt that I was back in Committee on the Finance Bill, becoming involved in more detailed matters.
The tenor of the Committee on this Bill was one of unanimity, and not necessarily linked with the sort of discussions we had on the Finance Bill. I am in the difficult position of not being able to agree entirely with my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling), who has been my tutor and mentor for many years. Having to put down an Amendment to Clause 2 makes me a little sad.
We had hoped, and I can quote from the column in Committee, when my right hon. Friend was leading for the Government, to produce a sensible Clause 11. We want to see that the public have an opportunity to receive price reductions, and we do not think that it would do any harm to honest traders, but we are concerned to ensure that people are not being misled. In spite of all the attempts that have been made, there is no satisfaction whatever with Clause 11. In this dilemma one has to ask whether it would not be better to do without the Clause and achieve our objective in another way.
This is a difficult problem, going back even to Molony. Paragraph 636 of Molony says, about the possibility of legislating:
We foresee difficulty in phrasing and the prohibition and in its enforcement. The practice is sufficiently widespread and deceptive to call for repression.
This is what we want to do. It is well known that, quite apart from those of us discussing this here, we have had to take account of the many interests outside, particularly those of the Consumer Council which, along with other bodies such as R.T.S.A., carry a good deal of authority. The view of the Council, despite the view expressed by my right hon. Friend, is that Clause 11 will not achieve the desired result.
The Council says of the Clause:
It does not take the definition of recommended prices any further.

It leaves untouched false reductions from a price alleged to have been charged by 'others' (as distinct from reductions from the seller's own previous price).
It adds that its proposed Clause
…presents the issue more concisely to the courts while the present Clause 11 tries to determine discretionary matters in advance (such as defining a recommended price), without in fact doing so.
It confidently felt that its proposed Clause would catch blatant cases and went on:
…we do not think that the complexities of Clause 11 could do any more than this.
In this respect, I take the point of the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), when he said that he considered that it would be more effective in practice to leave the question of dishonesty to the judgment of the courts.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, in whom we have a great deal of trust, and whom we have regarded with a great deal of affection in Committee, will realise the help that she can give if she will give us some assurance that, if we cannot settle things amicably here this afternoon, we shall be able to see some Amendments tabled in another place, making sense of this. We have seen a great deal of understanding on both sides. We are not concerned about politics, but getting things right by the consumer. I hope that she will find an opportunity to do this, so that we shall be able to give support to the Amendments, in the knowledge that we are to get what we want.
I look forward to hearing something that will be pleasing to us and that will preserve the general tone that existed in Committee.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I agree very much with the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Haseldine) and I must apologise to the House for not having contributed to the debate before, but I had not then returned to the House. I have been following the progress of the Bill, both in this House and another place, with a considerable amount of interest. I must declare a personal interest here, because I am connected with a large industrial concern very active in the consumer goods sphere.
Naturally, one has tended to pay a great deal of attention to the actual provisions of this Measure. In discussing these


Amendments, my association with the industry concerned with consumer goods has taught me, over the past two years, that the majority in commerce and industry is honest and honourable, seeking to do a good job in very competitive circumstances. As has been said, retailing and marketing is a very fine art, very well practised in this country. We would all agree that the idea behind the Bill is to catch dishonest traders, and it is a very good one.
I am also worried that it may discourage others, operating honourably. From outside the House, one has seen, during the progress of the Bill, that Clause 11 has always been a serious flaw. I believe that if it operates, it will lead to an upward trend in prices which is very undesirable. The Government should think again and accept the Amendment moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), and this Clause should be withdrawn.
I want to say a few words on the question of the "3d. or 6d. off" business. I do not think that it really does very much harm. If this Clause becomes operative, most manufacturers will practise this type of commercialism. Many people may say that it is misleading, that it will encourage prices to go up, and also create extra difficulties for people marketing in highly competitive circumstances. I am sure that genuine and honest shopkeepers will be frightened by these provisions and led into a state of hopeless confusion. This will curb their own natural marketing abilities, and they will not go in for promotion schemes, but instead take the line of least resistance each time. This means greater uniformity of prices—but prices which are going upwards.
The question of recommended prices is an important one. I listened with great interest and respect to the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling), and I read many of his valuable contributions in Committee. With great respect, I would suggest that he is wrong in saying that recommended prices will remain with us. They are on the way out, and we have to take due account of this. The form of promotion which the 3d. and 6d. off leads to does not do any real harm to anyone. It could be left alone without any harm being caused to the public.
Even at this late stage I would ask the hon. Lady whether she could not look at this again and smarten up Clause 11. I am possibly a little rusty on procedure, having been away for two years, but I feel—perhaps she could advise me—that it is impossible for the Government to make a suitable Amendment in another place unless we actually alter this Clause this afternoon. I would ask her to take Clause 11 back and bring forward another Amendment, so that the Bill can be far more workable than it will otherwise be.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Burden: The hon. Lady stated that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling), who accompanied her through the Committee stage of the Bill, on which I had the pleasure of sitting, has been her guide and mentor. If the hon. Lady refers to what he said in Committee, she will find that he was a little unhappy about the Clause.
I am also encouraged by the fact that this afternoon she apparently has two hawks behind her who have obviously given the matter very serious thought. I hope that she will take into account the careful and considered view that they have expressed. Indeed, there was a great degree of unanimity in Committee in general and about the problems that the Clause would create.
I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner) and the hon. Member for Bradford. West (Mr. Haseldine) will be hawks when the time comes to go into the Lobby. It would appear, although they hold their views extremely strongly, that after having given the matter very serious consideration they will be a couple of fluttering doves that the hon. Lady will be able to lead through the Lobby in her support if she disagrees with the Amendment and the views that they have expressed.
I also draw attention to some of the comments made in Committee by the right hon. Member for Hillsborough. We all agree that we have one aim: that the public, wherever possible, shall be able to get lower prices and that there should be no restriction imposed by legislation on shopkeepers reducing their prices. In


Committee, the right hon. Gentleman said:
…we must not stop genuine price reductions. We should encourage them. If, as the hon. and learned Member said, we do anything to spare traders and to make them fear that they will be in trouble with the law if they cut prices to sell old stock, or for some other good and honest purpose, we shall be making a grave mistake in the Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman showed that in his view there was still cause for concern. Hon. Gentlemen opposite this afternoon also made this clear. It is essential that retailers should be able to sell goods at a lower price than they have offered them before and declare that that is so.
I put a hypothetical, but nevertheless realistic, case to the right hon. Gentleman in Committee. I gave the illustration of a retailer who might buy a whole stock of merchandise which he had not before sold and offer it for sale at 50 per cent. below the price at which it had been sold in the general market. The right hon. Gentleman made it clear that if a retailer did that, because he had not sold that article before he could not publicise the fact that it was being sold at 50 per cent. lower than its proper price.

Mr. Darling: No.

Mr. Burden: I will quote what the right hon. Gentleman said, because this is the implication. This concerns garments sold at £7 10s. whereas the original price was 15s. The right hon. Gentleman said:
However, there is nothing to stop him from saying that the garments are genuine bargains. Obviously, he is going to be in trouble if he starts making misleading price comparisons."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 26th March, 1968; c. 231–4.]
The implication is clear. I will be glad if the right hon. Gentleman could make it clear to the Parliamentary Secretary that this reading of what he said is incorrect. I am happy to give way.

Mr. Darling: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The point I was trying to make—and I thought at the time it was a satisfactory answer to the question raised—was that if the garments had not been sold by that person before he could not say, "This is a price reduction from my previous price", because it obviously was not as he had not sold them before.
If he said, "These garments are 50 per cent. below the price for the same kind of things in other shops", and that is taken as true, there is no reason why he should not make that statement. He could not be prosecuted if he made a statement in that way.

Mr. Burden: I am glad to have the right hon. Gentleman make that clear, but this was not what he said in Committee.

Mr. Darling: indicated assent.

Mr. Burden: It is no good the right hon. Gentleman nodding. It is here in HANSARD. He said:
However, there is nothing to stop him from saying that the garments are genuine bargains.
The right hon. Gentleman certainly did not refer in Committee to the fact that that person would be in order in declaring that the garments were 50 per cent. lower than the price at which they had regularly been sold to the public. He made no mention of it then. The fact that he did not merely illustrates the problems that are created. It emphasises the force of the logic of the hon. Member for Rushcliffe and the hon. Member for Bradford, West and of my hon. Friends. In persuading those two hon. Gentlemen to be hawks this afternoon and not doves, what has emerged in the debate should help to encourage them.
The hon. Lady was very generous in Committee in listening to all points of view—she has a little steel in her as well, if necessary—but I suggest that this is a time when she might give very serious consideration to what has been suggested not only from behind her, but from this side of the House. It is far better she does this, if she has the slightest doubt, than that she pushes through the Bill as it is and sees it run into considerable difficulties in application after it gets on to the Statute Book.

Mr. David Crouch: The purpose of the debate today is no different from our purpose on Second Reading, namely, to make this a good Bill. There is agreement on both sides that this must be our aim.
We are pressing at some length two Amendments which must be and are being considered together. The hon.


Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner) has spoken with a background of expertise and experience, and he has been ably supported by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Haseldine). I ask the hon. Lady not to ignore this heartfelt expertise from many years of experience in retail trade and marketing which has come from behind her. She has had similar expressions of authority and experience from this side, too. I hope that she will not be intractable in her approach to the problem.
We on this side want to see a good Bill to protect consumers and to protect vigorous and fair marketing and retailing. My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis) said that we live in a sophisticated marketing period. Buying and selling is a sophisticated operation. Everyone has to be on his toes. If the Board of Trade insists on many provisos about prices and price reductions, as in Clause 11, it will emasculate the opportunity for fair, vigorous and responsible trading and for fair buying. The opportunity for the consumers to benefit from price reductions may be lost if the Clause is allowed through.
The general view has been expressed that there is an irritant in products constantly being offered at reduced prices. This is so, but manufacturers and retailers are in competition and the irritation gives the housewife the opportunity of a lower price if she also shops with vigour. It is not to deceive her. We want to remove any element of deceit and to make a good Bill.
I draw the hon. Lady's attention to the remarks in another place of another Board of Trade Minister, Lord Brown, on the difficult question of how best the Clause could be phrased to catch unreliable retailers while still permitting fair marketing:
We in the Board of Trade have not given up trying to tackle this matter.
I hope that the hon. Lady will share that sentiment. He went on:
All sorts of ideas have been put forward and discussed, and we do not see our way through it; but we have not yet stopped thinking."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 29th January, 1968; Vol. 288, c. 665]
This is a salutary thought and I ask the hon. Lady to consider whether the

Amendments do not offer a solution. At least, there seems to be agreement across the House, and we are being constructive.
The speeches of the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) are always helpful, and are based on wide experience of legislation at the Board of Trade and the facts of life in the market place. But he did not accept today that we are trying to be constructive by dropping Clause 11 and strengthening Clause 2.
The Molony Committee was very careful in considering misleading price claims. In paragraph 588, it said:
The next call for amendment related to claims that merchandise is on otter at bargain price It was submitted that there is widespread misrepresentation in this respect.…
This is what we are debating. We are concerned to put right this misrepresentation, but by better drafting. Lord Brown expressed concern at the inadequacy of the drafting of Clause 11 some months ago.
In the same paragraph, Molony said:
…in a competitive economy, the consumer might reasonably expect the normal price of goods to provide a fair indication of their quality, particularly if that quality could not be readily assessed by superficial examination or by reference to any description supplied with the goods; and therefore that a false or misleading statement of the original price or real value of the goods materially deceived the consumer as to the merits of the merchandise on offer.
This is why Clause 2 defines a trade description, so why do we leave out reference to price only to make a complicated and misleading provision in Clause 11?
The Amendments would add these price references to Clause 2 and would drop Clause 11. Although the latter recommendation comes only from this side it seemed to be agreed, judging from the nodding of hon. Members opposite. I have tried to persuade the hon. Lady to accept my point of view in Committee and I hope that I have succeeded today.

5.15 p.m.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody.: The debate has ranged wide. It has been interesting to hear that I am surrounded by both doves and hawks. I have never regarded my hon. Friends the Members for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner) or Bradford, West (Mr. Haseldine) as birds, but one learns something every day. Several hon.


Gentlemen have raised detailed points, but perhaps I may take a little time in explanation.
It is suggested that Amendment No. 3 would deal more satisfactorily with false price comparisons than does Clause 11 by providing that an indication of the former or usual price of any goods shall be a trade description. We are sure that this is not so. The effect of the Amendments would merely be that the offences stated in Clause 1—of applying a false trade description, or of supplying or offering to supply goods to which a false trade description is applied—would arise where someone applied to a particular article a false indication of the former or usual price of that particular article. I stress the words, "of that particular article".
That might cover the case of the trader who has formerly offered the particular article at £2, and now purports to offer it at a marked-down price. But that case is already clearly covered by Clause 11—and covered a great deal more satisfactorily, because we have there spelled out precisely for the benefit of the courts and of traders who have to comply with the law what an indication of former price is to be taken to mean.
But the Amendment would not deal with the many cases in which comparison is made with the price at which, not these particular goods, but goods of the same description have been offered. This is a very frequent type of comparison and, as long as it is truthful, a perfectly fair one. The trader says, in effect, "Previously, I have been selling goods just like this for £2; now I am going to offer the same line at 35s.". If he makes such a comparison falsely he is caught, as he should be, by Clause 11 because we there refer to "the goods or goods of the same description". But he could not possibly be caught for a false trade description offence by this Amendment of Clause 2.
The answer to that is not simply a further Amendment to Clause 2 to relate it to indications "with respect to any goods or to goods of the same description". That would completely distort the whole carefully designed effect of Clause 2 with regard to the various other kinds of indications about goods it now covers, and distort it in so far-reaching a manner that I doubt whether any of us could foresee all the remarkable and undesirable consequences.
It is, of course, true that the Molony Committee suggested that the "former or usual price" of any goods should be included in the definition of a trade description. The Committee did not discuss this concept in any detail; but it noted that such a provision would be difficult both to draft and to enforce. This was in paragraph 636. When we came to examine this suggestion, we found that the difficulties of that approach were very great.
This is a point on which the Clause has been exhaustively examined. I know that my noble Friend in another place said that he still had an open mind, but the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) will realise that, since that date, there has been a great deal of discussion and consultation. This Clause has been backwards and forwards not only between the Opposition and the Government and between hon. Members opposite and the Board of Trade, but also between this House and another place, like a pea in a baby's rattle.
The stated Molony objective of dealing with
false comparative price claims meant to convey that goods have been genuinely marked down in the particular retail establishment
could be achieved far more satisfactorily by a separate Clause 11. Price claims are, in general, of so different a character from descriptions directly related to particular goods that the provisions needed to deal with them are just not congruous with the scheme of the first six Clauses of the Bill——

Mr. Burden: The hon. Lady said that considerable discussion and examination of the Clause has taken place since the Committee stage. Considerable discussion took place in another place and up to the Committee and in Committee What further discussion has made her more certain today than she was after those considerable discussions?

Mrs. Dunwoody: The hon. Gentleman will realise that the Clause has been amended—perhaps not so widely as some hon. Gentlemen would want, but where we disagree is that he thinks that, because we cannot do absolutely everything, we should do nothing at all. Perhaps he will allow me to develop the argument on the points raised.
The hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) raised the question of leaving decisions like this to the courts. We cannot agree that it would be right to leave it to the courts to decide what amounts to a false indication of comparative price. It has emerged very clearly from the lengthy debates on this question that it is a very complicated matter. In resolving the tangle, there must be two main objectives. One is that the consumer should know what meaning to attach to a trader's claim to have reduced his price. The second is that honest traders should know what claims they can properly and safely make, and that those who have to enforce the law—whether the courts or the local weights and measures authorities—should know as clearly as possible what constitutes an offence.
To leave the issue to the mercy of this vague and unelaborated Amendment would be merely to create doubts and conflicting decisions all round, whereas the carefully worked out approach of Clause 11 offers as clear and sound a basis for shoppers, shopkeepers, and enforcers as we think can be devised.
The Amendment would certainly not catch false comparisons with other people's prices. Even if other people's prices were regarded as a "former or usual price"—and it is not the happiest way of referring to them—they would not be the price of the goods to which the shopkeeper was applying the indication, but the price of goods of the same description, which, as I have already explained, would not be covered by the Amendment.
The other Amendment would delete Clause 11 and would also mean that there would be no prohibition of false comparisons with recommended prices. I know that some people think, for varying reasons, that this would be a change for the better, but I do not agree. The proposal seems to disregard the fact that there are two separate and distinct kinds of malpractice in relation to such prices. The first is practised by the trader who deliberately over-states the amount by which his price is lower than a genuine recommended price or, with the same object of claiming a false price cut, quotes a recommended price when none exists. Clause 11 would prohibit these false

claims and I see no reason why it should not. There are still plenty of recommended prices—despite the remarks of some hon. Gentlemen opposite—which are genuine in the sense that they are observed by a proportion of retailers.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Would not the hon. Lady agree that the trend is towards the abolition of recommended prices?

Mrs. Dunwoody: There was enormous strength in the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) that there is some indication that that is not necessarily so.
As I was saying, there are still plenty of recommended prices which are genuine, in the sense that they are observed by at least some proportion of retailers. It is perfectly legitimate for those who are selling at less than the recommended figure to draw attention to the fact, and it is quite wrong that unscrupulous traders should be free to misrepresent the recommended price and so deceive the public as to the amount of the bargain they purport to offer.
We know only too well that it is not practicable to deal with all the forms of misrepresentation which occur in comparative pricing. But this malpractice is one which is quite easily controllable—it presents no serious problem of enforcement—and it seems only sensible that the Bill should prohibit it.
The second kind of malpractice—the quotation of "phoney" recommended prices—is another matter. We are told that there are two main forms of these misleading recommendations. The price may be recommended by a manufacturer to all retailers, but at a level which he knows is higher than the price at which any of them are likely to retail the goods. This he does so that every seller may claim to be offering a bargain at less than the "recommended price". This, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough said in Committee, is something which we see no way of preventing in the present legislation.
The other type of "phoney" recommended price is the one which is not generally promulgated but which is made to a limited range of retailers. It may even be recommended by a wholesaler to a retailer at the retailer's request, at a


quite ridiculous figure so that the retailer can pretend to be offering an enormous bargain when his price is, in fact, normal—or above normal—for such goods. The comparison made is utterly meaningless, and serves only to deceive. This abuse would to some extent be curbed by the provisions of Clause 11(3,b), which would ensure that an indication of a recommended price, unless expressly qualified, is treated as a price generally recommended by the manufacturer or producer of the goods.
I do not pretend that this is anything like a complete answer to the problem of "phoney" recommendations—this will give some comfort to the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden)—but it is as far as we think it reasonable and practicable to go in the Bill.
5.30 p.m.
The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis) was worried about the question of fiscal changes, although I thought that his argument was a little transmuted. He suggested that retailers should be entitled to disregard price increases due to tax changes when making claims of the so much "off" variety. He was worried lest they be caught it there had been a fiscal change overnight. I do not feel that this is a practical problem that would arise. I cannot imagine that there would be an immediate series of prosecutions of retailers who had not changed their prices immediately after a tax change.
I appreciate, however, in regard to the question of whether or not they should be allowed to disregard price increases and keep their prices unchanged after allowing for tax increases, that that is another matter. We feel that there are various ways open to a retailer to draw attention to the fact without making the false suggestion that he has reduced his price below its former level.
Other considerations have concerned hon. Members, such as the whole question of promotional interference—this business of "2d. off". We have reviewed the provisions of Clause 11 in the light of the points raised in Committee about its effect on certain existing promotional practices. We are clear that, with the further Amendments which we propose to subsection 3(a,ii), it would contain nothing to prevent manufacturers and retailers

from continuing to make price cuts whenever they wish.
The consequence of the provisions dealing with previous prices is that when a supplier claims to have reduced his price, any previous price to which he refers must—unless he expressly qualifies the claim—be a price at which he has, in fact, offered the goods recently and for long enough to make it a genuine price. This is, we think, the natural inference for customers to draw an indication such as "6d. off", and a retailer who offers goods marked in this way when he has not taken 6d. off his previous price is giving a false impression.
It has been said that these provisions will entail some changes in the ways in which manuacturers and distributors at present handle such special offers. If so, it will only be because, under the present system, the customer has not always received the benefit of the reduction implied by the marking on the packet.

Mr. Burden: The question is whether the Clause would catch the person who, for example, produced a packaged article and the price of the package was reduced by 3d. but not the contents because the contents were fewer than had previously been advertised at the higher price.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I do not think that that would be caught under the Clause, but it would probably be caught under Clause 2.
At the risk of mortally offending some of my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite who have addressed gentle remarks to me—they have urged me not to be intransigent and difficult—I must be considerably hawk-like and resist the Amendment. I am having rather a traumatic week. Yesterday, I was referred to as a well-built yacht. At the risk of offending hon. Members, I must urge them not to press the Amendment.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I hesitate to intervene, because so far I have taken no part in the proceedings on the Bill. I rise only because my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) would have wished to be here to intervene at this stage. I assure the hon. Lady that I do not intend to call her anything. I have great respect for her and it is because I believe that she is a fair-minded person, with an open mind,


that I make a final plea on behalf of not only my hon. Friends but a number of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
I urge the hon. Lady to take the Clause back and make one further attempt to put it into the sort of shape which will achieve what we want to see. All hon. Members appreciate who we want to catch and the evils we wish to prevent. I do not see how anybody who has listened to today's debate and has read the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee proceedings, as I have, can feel that we can send the Bill back to another place with the Clause in its present state. If it is sent back unchanged the provision will create many difficulties and do the harm which hon. Members have mentioned. Grave difficulties will be caused to retailers in many walks of life.
The right hon. Member Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling), who was then speaking for the Government, said in Committee:
If…we do anything to spare"—
I believe that a misprint occurred at that point—
traders and to make them fear that they will be in trouble with the law if they cut prices to sell old stock, or for some other good and honest purpose, we shall be making a grave mistake in the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 26th March, 1968; c. 231.]
Considering the good will that has gone into the efforts of hon. Members generally in trying to find a solution to this problem, I do not feel that anybody who has listened to the debates on the subject can say that a solution has been found. For this reason, I urge the hon. Lady to take the Clause back for further consideration.
I remind her that although she is only the Parliamentary Secretary—I use the word "only" not in a disparaging way—she is in charge of the Bill. It behoves her, having listened to the debate, to appreciate the strength of the case that has been made. If she accepts Amendment No. 33 it will be open to the Government at a later stage to reverse that decision. I appreciate the difficulties inherent in the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner), but that should not prevent the hon. Lady from withdrawing the Clause for further consideration.
I am sure that a solution can be found if the Government give further thought to the matter. We would be making a grave mistake if we sent the Bill back to another place with the Clause remaining as it stands. I urge the hon. Lady to have an open mind on the issue. The Bill has had the broad agreement of both sides on many of its aspects. It would be a pity if, at this late stage, we disagreed on such a vital matter.

Mr. Darling: I intervene to put the record straight. Hon. Members have rightly quoted the remarks I made in Committee, but I must point out that the remarks quoted by the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) in the reference to scaring traders—it was a misprint, of course—and making them fear that if they made price reductions they would be caught by the law, were introductory remarks to Amendments which were then accepted by the Committee.
It is only fair to point out to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), who quoted what was said by my noble Friend Lord Brown in another place, that this is not the same Clause as that to which my noble Friend referred. The Bill has been amended in the way in which my noble Friend wanted it to be amended and he now supports this Clause in the Bill. It is necessary to make that perfectly clear. My remarks were introductory to improvements which have been made and the amendment Clause is not the Clause to which my noble Friend referred.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I emphasise that the remarks, although they were quoted at the stage in the speech to which the right hon. Gentleman as referred, were equally relevant after the debate in which points were made by hon. Members from both sides of the House about the difficulties which this Clause will get us into.

Mr. Darling: I would not accept that.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) has been most beguiling this afternoon and my heart would be delighted to give into those gentle words were it not that my head tells me that that would be wrong. I do not know whether it is possible to be immersed in a Clause, but as Parliamentary Secretary I


have been living with this Clause for some time. It has been very carefully examined many times and it has been amended. We are now convinced that this is the final form in which we should like to see it in the Bill. Therefore, at the risk of losing the affection of the hon. Member, I must say quite firmly

that we shall resist both these Amendments as we do not think they would contribute to the Bill in any constructive form.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 155, Noes 185.

Division No. 132.]
AYES
[5.42 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gurden, Harold
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Astor, John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Awdry, Daniel
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Balniel, Lord
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Percival, Ian


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hawkins, Paul
Peyton, John


Bell, Ronald
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Higgins, Terence L.
Pink, R. Bonner


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hiley, Joseph
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Biffen, John
Hill, J. E. B.
Prior, J. M. L.


Black, Sir Cyril
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pym, Francis


Blaker, Peter
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Boardman, Tom
Holland, Philip
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hooson, Emlyn
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hordern, Peter
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hornby, Richard
Russell, Sir Ronald


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Hunt, John
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Silvester, Frederick


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Sinclair, Sir George


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Jopling, Michael
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Burden, F. A.
Kershaw, Anthony
Stainton, Keith


Campbell, Gordon
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Cary, Sir Robert
Kitson, Timothy
Stodart, Anthony


Channon, H. P. G.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Tapsell, Peter


Clegg, Walter
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Costain, A. P.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Crouch, David
Loveys, W. H.
Temple, John M.


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Lubbock, Eric
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
MacArthur, Ian
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Eden, Sir John
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maddan, Martin
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Maginnis, John E.
Walters, Dennis


Eyre, Reginald
Maude, Angus
Ward, Dame Irene


Farr, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Weatherill, Bernard


Fisher, Nigel
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Webster, David


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Foster, Sir John
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Galbraith, Hon. T. G.
Miscampbell, Norman
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gibson-Watt, David
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Monro, Hector
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Glover, Sir Douglas
More, Jasper
Wright, Esmond


Glyn, Sir Richard
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wylie, N. R.


Goodhart, Philip
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Younger, Hn. George


Goodhew, Victor
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh



Gower, Raymond
Murton, Oscar
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grant, Anthony
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Mr. Anthony Royle and


Grant-Ferris, R.
Neave, Airey
Mr. Humphrey Atkins.




NOES


Alldritt, Walter
Blackburn, F.
Cant, R. B.


Allen, Scholefield
Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Carmichael, Neil


Anderson, Donald
Booth, Albert
Coe, Denis


Archer, Peter
Boyden, James
Concannon, J. D.


Armstrong, Ernest
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Cullen, Mrs. Alice


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Bradley, Tom
Dalyell, Tam


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Darling, Rt. Hn. George


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)


Barnett, Joel
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Baxter, William
Buchan, Norman
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Binns, John
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Dempsey, James


Bishop, E. S.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Dewar, Donald




Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Dickens, James
Judd, Frank
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Dobson, Ray
Kelley, Richard
Palmer, Arthur


Doig, Peter
Kenyon, Clifford
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Dunnett, Jack
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth Central)
Park, Trevor


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Leadbitter, Ted
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Eadie, Alex
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Pavitt, Laurence


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Ellis, John
Lomas, Kenneth
Pentland, Norman


English, Michael
Loughlin, Charles
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Faulds, Andrew
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Fernyhough, E.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Price, William (Rugby)


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
McBride, Neil
Randall, Harry


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
MacColl, James
Rees, Merlyn


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
MacDermot, Niall
Richard, Ivor


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Macdonald, A. H.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Ford, Ben
McGuire, Michael
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Forrester, John
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Freeson, Reginald
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Garrett, W. E.
Mackie, John
Sheldon, Robert


Ginsburg, David
Mackintosh, John P.
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Maclennan, Robert
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Slater, Joseph


Gregory, Arnold
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Small, William


Grey, Charles (Durham)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Swingler, Stephen


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Symonds, J. B.


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Manuel, Archie
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mapp, Charles
Thornton, Ernest


Hamling, William
Marquand, David
Tomney, Frank


Hannan, William
Mendelson, J. J.
Varley, Eric G.


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Millan, Bruce
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Moonman, Eric
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wellbeloved, James


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wilkins, W. A.


Hoy, James
Moyle, Roland
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Neal, Harold
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Newens, Stan
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Hunter, Adam
Oakes, Gordon
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Hynd, John
Ogden, Eric
Woof, Robert


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Sp'nb'gh)
O'Malley, Brian
Yates, Victor


Janner, Sir Barnett
Orbach, Maurice



Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Orme, Stanley
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Oswald, Thomas
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Mr. Ernest G. Perry.

Clause 4.

APPLYING A TRADE DESCRIPTION TO GOODS.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 38, leave out 'An oral statement' and insert:
False or misleading oral statements if made—

(a) persistently, and
(b) knowingly or recklessly.
I understand that it is for the convenience of the House if we take with it Amendment No. 5, in page 3, line 38, after 'statement', insert 'if corroborated'.
That was what Mr. Speaker told me before you took the chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on the understanding that we might vote separately on the Amendments. Mr. Speaker suggested that since they deal with the same problem, though in different ways, it would perhaps be a good idea to take them together.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): If the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes. At the same time we can discuss Amendment No. 6, in page 3, line 39, at end insert:
'no prosecution shall be brought unless the evidence has been corroborated by the prosecuting authority'.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: The Amendment deals with the question rather publicly aired by the President of the National Chamber of Trade since our Committee meetings of the extent to which, if at all, oral statements should be capable of founding a prosecution under the Act. I make no apology for reading out what the Molony Committee said on this point. For the sake of brevity I shall omit paragraph 658 of its Report, but we cannot repeat too often what the Committee said in paragraph 659, namely:
If oral misdescription became a criminal offence, we would expect a marked increase


in prosecutions and the outcome would depend, in a high proportion, on whether the customer or the shopkeeper was believed. We are doubtful whether, in the long run, the consumer would, benefit from such invidious conflicts. On the other side of the balance, there must be recognised the danger that the shopkeeper might be taken to court out of spite; or threatened with prosecution if he failed to submit to some extortionate demand in relation to the goods.
The hon. Lady rather pooh-poohed this fear in Committee. I had to repeat it then, and I repeat it now as it was set out by the very high-powered Molony Committee, which inquired into the matter most carefully. The paragraph continues:
We also heed the consideration that to alter the present law might tend to impose restraint on what was said about the goods by the more responsible retailers. The result might be to deprive the customer of such information and advice as a helpful shopkeeper is able to give. In practice, the misdescription would usually emanate from a shop assistant or outside salesman, and with the rapid turnover in these occupations the owner of the business might be wholly unable to provide any answer to a charge. On balance, our conclusion is that extension of the law in this respect would not be justified. But better understanding of the law may lead consumers to ask for written confirmation of material points in the information given about the goods.
Paragraph 660 says:
It will readily be appreciated that we have not found our decision as to whether the law should be altered to strike at oral misdescription an easy one to make. As indicated in paragraph 658 above there is a real problem here which is not likely to abate. A substantial safeguard exists, in practice, in the capacity of inspectors to obtatin written confirmation of the oral misdescription on a test purchase made after the shopper's complaint. The scope for oral misdescription will be limited, we trust, by adoption of our recommendations for informative labelling. If these protective factors do not fulfil our expectations in the future, our decision might require to be reviewed.
One of our first questions in Committee and now is why the Government have not given the time for which the Molony Committee asked to see whether, with the various other suggestions and the provisions of the Bill, it is necessary to legislate in the case of oral misdescription in the absolute way that the Government have plunged into. We have always recognised that there are bad cases of oral misdescription, not so much in shops as by the doorstep salesmen, of whom a minority—no doubt a small minority—persistently and knowingly or recklessly

have from time to time given false descriptions of the goods they are peddling to housewives. That is why we have not sought the extreme view of banishing oral misdescription from the Bill altogether but have sought a compromise by which only that wicked minority should be caught.
Instead of any oral statement being capable of being a misdescription, we say by Amendment 4 that it must be a false or misleading oral statement being made persistently, knowingly or recklessly. In other words, the Amendment imports into the Bill the concept of a guilty mind, about which we had a great discussion in Committee. It is the concept which the Government themselves introduced in later Clauses concerning misdescriptions in the case of provision of services. In the Clauses dealing with services, the offender must be guilty either of knowing what he is saying is wrong or doing it recklessly, not caring whether it be right or wrong. We say that that is a very appropriate test in the case of oral statement.
We have seen in another branch of the law since the Committee stage, in the case of the poor, unfortunate Miss Sweet, what can happen if we make too many absolute criminal offences. If we make too many offences absolute we shall cause the most grievous injustice and are liable to bring to a silent, if not grinding, halt the service provided by the retail trade, particularly the small retailer in giving advice and answering questions. There is a very great turnover in shop assistants. Seventy-five per cent. of them are school leavers and it is almost impossible to expect the employer, who will be absolutely liable for what these girls may say, to exercise the sort of care and control over them which the Bill now requires. The only consequence will be that the customer will not get the information he gets now.
6.0 p.m.
A wise retailer will in future instruct his staff not to help. By doing so, they may give a false description, unknowingly and unwittingly; certainly not recklessly; but perhaps negligently or even innocently, and the shopkeeper will be in grave danger of being prosecuted. Even if he eventually escapes under one of the defences provided by a subsequent Clause,


he will still run the risk of a prosecution, and prosecution, even if innocence is found eventually under one of the special defences, is a very serious thing for him to face.
Therefore, we say that it is wrong to make an absolute liability, as the Bill does, for oral misdescriptions and oral statements by employees and others. It is a breach of faith to the small keeper. Hon. Members will remember that the small shopkeeper was very suspicious of the Resale Prices Act, and he was assured that he retained a place in the community and provided a service to the community which could not be provided by the supermarket. He and his assistants were free, in a way that supermarkets were not free, to give advice and to recommend one article rather than another.
If oral misdescriptions, innocent though they may be, are to be held to expose him to prosecution under the Act, he will, if he is wise, shut up like a clam, which will mean that he will not have the edge over the supermarkets which he has had hitherto and which he is entitled to expect.
Whatever the hon. Lady and others may have said in Committee, it is not difficult to import the test of "knowingly or recklessly". It is not difficult to import the test of persistence either. There are in our law many examples of that. It is very important, if a prosecution is to be launched purely for an oral misdescription, that it should be necessary to prove that it was made either knowingly or recklessly and persistently. Otherwise, we shall find ourselves in the danger that the shopkeeper might be taken to court out of spite, or threatened with prosecution, if he failed to submit to an extortionate demand in relation to the goods. The Molony Committee thought that this was a danger which was very likely to arise.
Hon. Members must realise that prosecutions, quite rightly, can be launched by private persons. But one of the consequences of that is that there is in the Bill no barrier against any private person instituting a private prosecution out of spite in the way that the Molony Committee fear.
Amendment No. 5 tackles the problem in a slightly different way. It leaves the

absolute offence. That is to say, it is not necessary to prove mens rea, or guilty mind, but provides that no conviction shall be secured unless the statement is corroborated by someone other than the complainant. The Amendment would go some way to meet the fears of the Molony Committee that a high proportion of the cases would depend on whether the customer or the shopkeeper was believed. It is always dangerous to trust an account of a conversation between two parties when there is no corroborative third party present. Therefore, if Amendment No. 4 is not accepted, at least Amendment No. 5 should be. There are many offences in law where corroboration is required. I could elaborate on this, but I do not wish to do so, as we are anxious to get on.
We will not accept the approach of the Government, that for these economic crimes it is necessary to have a standard of absolute reliability, irrespective of a guilty mind, irrespective of whether the person charged is a rogue or not, because otherwise the law cannot be enforced. We utterly reject this approach.
Indeed, the opposite is the case. It is true that a lay bench is not likely to convict, and is likely to regard the law as wrong. A lay bench, like a jury, believes that the criminal law is there to deal with rogues, and not with innocent persons. Therefore, if you put upon the lay bench the task of deciding whether innocent people are guilty, even although they did all that they could reasonably be expected to do to stop the offence being committed, the Bill will become just such a dead letter as did the Merchandise Marks Act. In that case the standard of proof in the event, after the judicial glosses were put upon it, was even more stringent, in the sense that an innocent person might be found guilty. It became a dead letter for that reason, and lay benches thought very little of the Act.
We do not want that to happen here. We want to make sure that the rogues are caught, but we do not want the retail trade to be embarrassed, hustled and frightened. The President of the National Chamber of Trade, who is the spokesman for the retail trade, has recently stigmatised this portion of the Billl as being an appalling prospect for the retail trade.
I hope, therefore, that the hon. Lady, having failed to give us anything on the previous Amendment, may feel that she can give us the substance either of Amendment No. 4 or of Amendment No. 5, and I leave to her which of those two approaches she prefers.

Mr. Goodhart: We are very lucky in that the acoustics in this debating chamber are splendid and, even if we lower our voices, there are microphones to pick up and amplify what we say. Our words are recorded, and we then have an opportunity to correct them. Such conditions do not apply in the shops and on the doorsteps to which the Clause refers.
Together with a number of my colleagues, I have had the experience in the last few days of trying to do some doorstep selling. I have been going round to the houses in my constituency holding out election addresses to the householders, when they answer, and suggesting that they might like to give their support—or make a purchase, as it were—to the eminently desirable Conservative candidates standing for election in the area. By and large, I have had a very friendly reception.
However, on one occasion I went to the door and went through my little set speech and the woman of the house looked at me and said, "The picture keeps shaking". It was plain to me that, despite the fact that I was covered with party labels, she thought that I was from the television rental company and had come about the line hold in her set. I tried to put the matter right. However, as I was going through my little speech again, a lorry went roaring past and drowned the conversation. She took out her purse and offered me a £1 note, which put me in a very difficult position, because I was not sure whether she thought that she was offering it to me as representing the Conservative Party or as representing Radio Rentals. I gently restrained her enthusiasm and said that people would call for the money later.
That merely goes to show the total confusion which can arise in what was, after all, a perfectly normal conversation on a doorstep.
I had another example of people being totally at cross-purposes at lunch-time today. I had the very good fortune of being invited to a rather formal occa-

sion. I am happy to say that a wine waiter appeared and said to me: "Will you have the hock or burgundy?". I said, "I will have the burgundy", to which the waiter said, "A very wise choice, sir", and proceeded to pour out the hock. On this occasion, no noise of any sort intruded, but the two parties to the conversation were totally at cross-purposes.
It may well be that the wine waiter could say, "I have an impediment in hearing". I have a slight impediment in my hearing as a result of diving too deeply and breaking an eardrum. I find it very difficult to hear what is said on the telephone if I hold the telephone in my left hand and against my left ear. Difficulty in hearing is not unusual. Thirty per cent. of the population are said to suffer from some impediment in hearing. One wonders whether deafness will be an offence under this Clause. Certainly one would imagine that in any prosecution the defence would wish to test the hearing of all concerned. Very few successful prosecutions will be brought under the Clause because of the difficulty, for one reason or another, of establishing the true facts.
6.15 p.m.
Do people outside understand the real position, which was satisfactorily outlined by the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee? She said:
I hope that we do not get too bogged down in the arguments…that prosecutions in respect of oral misdescription will be brought solely on the strength of what a customer claims that a shop assistant said. It is unjust that the trade should be open to conviction as a result of such evidence. That argument shows little faith in our courts.
The hon. Lady went on to say:
I have no doubt whatever that if the courts are faced with the uncorroborated evidence of an aggrieved customer about what a shop assistant said, they will treat it with appropriate circumspection".—[OFFCIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 14th March, 1968; c. 84–5.]
The hon. Lady gave a fair and accurate description of the efficiency and fairness of our courts. But the fact that we have good courts is no excuse for passing bad laws. Acceptance of these Amendments can do no harm, because, as the hon. Lady will acknowledge, they merely ensure court procedure at its best.
However, rejection of all the Amendments would do positive harm. It is my


view that the real danger to shoppers is not deliberate misdescription of goods but imprecision in the description of goods by shop assistants. If we allow this part of the Bill to go through without Amendment, the danger is that a shop assistant will give an inaccurate description of the goods rather than say, "I do not know".
Like all hon. Members, I want to see the real rogues caught. Therefore, I am not opposed to oral misdescription playing some part in the Bill. But I fear that if all the Amendments are rejected the decision to make oral misdescription an offence will, on balance, do more harm than good to the consumer.

Mr. Crouch: I say again that our object is to make better a good Bill, which we welcome. I merely wish to support the argument of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) that the danger of the Bill concerning oral misdescription is that it will tend to take away from our lives the helpful salesman and saleswoman. Let us produce a good Bill to help the consumer and, by so doing, help the helpful retailer to go on being helpful.
This Bill, if it has this Clause regarding the oral description, without this valuable Amendment containing the categorisation of such an oral misdescription as being made persistently and knowingly or recklessly, will not take account of the way shopping is done. This Amendment constitutes a recognition of the contribution of the retailer, whose salesmen want to help the shopper. If the hon. Lady feels that she cannot accept the Amendment and must leave this bald statement in the Bill as it now stands, I am afraid that we shall see a deterioration in the relations between the customer and the retailer, which is just what we do not want to happen.
The whole object of the Bill is to improve and perfect those relations, to take us on to a new plane and level of fair trading. Maybe we shall still get fair trading, but the Bill will take out some of the oil that is put in to help the customer, the housewife or any other person shopping to find what they want and be satisfied with their purchase.
I support absolutely what my hon. and learned Friend has said are his misgivings

about the Bill as it stands. It will also put some sand into the workings of the relationship between the proprietor of a shop and his employees. His employees will be afraid of his breathing down their, necks with this Bill in his hands, throwing the book at them too, and saying, "Do not tell the customers anything in the future; for goodness sake do not get me into the courts." This will mean a very unsaisfactory way of shopping.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) said that he had the misfortune to have to drink the wrong wine at lunch. He should have pointed to the label on the bottle and said, "No, I mean that one", because, as hon. and right hon. Members know, I am a very strong supporter of informative labelling at the point of sale and correct information in all forms of advertising where it is applicable and where it is possible, but particularly at the point of sale. Good and helpful salesmen or saleswomen can point to the label even if they cannot find the words to give the reasons why the customer should be persuaded to buy a certain article. I mention this because it is a way out of the hon. Lady's difficulty in exercising, as an hon. Lady, a Member and a women herself, the woman's privilege of changing her mind on this subject.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I strongly support what my hon. Friend has said. I am sure that all reasonable people are very anxious to clamp down on the unscrupulous doorstep salesman and run him out of business, but what worries me about this is that as the Bill is drafted large numbers of innocent people could quite inadvertently get on the wrong side of the law and be prosecuted. They might get away because the evidence was not corroborated, but there is a certain stigma even in being taken before a court and being exposed to this kind of thing. As my hon. Friend has just said, there is the difficulty that the shopkeeper, manager or owner may take the line of least resistance and tell his staff not to take any chances but just to give the stuff to the customer over the counter and refuse to answer any queries. How can the manager or owner of a big shop or store keep proper supervision over all his staff, many of whom are young, a staff which, as has been said,


is constantly changing? Surely this part of the Bill must be qualified.
I was amazed to read this particular statement in the Bill. There would seem to be a certain amount of slipshod drafting. Surely, if this provision is to be in the Bill it must include the words proposed by my hon. and learned Friend—
persistently, and…knowlingly or recklessly".
This would be a clear indication of an intent on the part of the individual to mislead.
I am thinking also of young girls who serve in chemist shops. The chemist is not always available and customers often ask for elementary advice about medicines which are sold. These young girls, quite sincerely and honestly, give their own impression of what the stuff is. Many such people would expose themselves to prosecution under the Bill as drafted at present, and this would lead to a deterioration in the relationship between members of the public and shopkeepers. People definitely look for guidance and are prepared to accept reasonable guidance. I do not believe that the public is as gullible as some people think. It understands that it is being misled. We know the dangers of the doorstep operator and the fact that he can get away with quite serious offences, but the vast majority of people who serve behind counters in shops try to do their job honourably, and this is accepted by individuals
There is a great danger that, if we let this go through unamended, there will be malicious prosecutions. There are large numbers of busybodies around who are only too pleased to take legal action Whenever they can find the opportunity. I am extremely worried, particularly with this Government, that more and more regulations and restrictions are being brought forward and that, as a result, people who are otherwise completely innocent are finding it extremely difficult to keep within the letter of the law.

Mr. Burden: I should like to draw the attention of the House once again to the fact that this is a Bill that has criminal sanctions, and very serious ones. It cannot be spelled out too often that a person found guilty of an offence under this Bill might be liable on summary conviction to

a fine not exceeding £400 and, on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding two years, or both. This is a very serious matter.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) made the point in his speech that if lay magistrates were to have brought before them a Bill that had criminal sanctions, particularly sanctions of this type, they would be extremely reluctant to convict because of the weight of the sanctions. If this is so, it is all the more reason for the hon. Lady to give very serious consideration to these Amendments, because surely the last thing in the world that the hon. Lady would like to see is a situation in which, owing to the harshness of the sanctions, the lay courts would be reluctant to convict, if indeed they found there was a good case.
If this argument has any validity at all it must be strengthened by the fact that the courts are going to be asked also to convict on uncorroborated evidence. That is a very serious matter and, again, something that should give the hon. Lady cause for very serious thought. In view of the harsh character of the sanctions that could be imposed by the courts, I should be extremely careful about convicting if I were a lay magistrate, and I should want the charge to be backed up by other evidence to make sure that the statements were persistent, reckless and had been knowingly made. I hope that the hon. Lady will consider that.
6.30 p.m.
The Bill could well prove to be an incentive to unscrupulous shoppers who want to gain their own ends. Just as there are unscrupulous shopkeepers, so, alas, there are unscrupulous shoppers who will often do all that they can to avoid keeping an article after they have bought it.
Let us suppose that Mrs. Jones is going to an important function. She buys an expensive dress, she wears it and her husband says, "You looked lovely this evening, but how much did the dress cost?". On being told he says, "I am not paying for that. You can take it back to the shop." Mrs. Jones then takes the dress back to the shop and says that she bought it because of the information which she was given, but she has brought it back because she has discovered that


what she was told is not true. She might well decide to take the case to court if the shop refuses to accept the dress. Many reputable stores take back items even if they have been sold to unscrupulous people because they know that if they are involved in a court case that might damage their reputation.

Mr. Gardner: Is it not true that Mrs. Jones' legal advisers would advise her that the shopkeeper has a good defence under Clause 23 and that she should not pursue the matter any further?

Mr. Burden: That sounds wonderful, but we cannot rely on her receiving that advice, and even if she did the shop's reputation could still be damaged. An implied threat is often sufficient to get a store or shop to settle a case.
The hon. Lady referred to firms not being convicted. Surely we want to avoid innocent shopkeepers being brought before the courts, with all the odium that would result? In Committee the hon. Lady said:
I would hesitate to comment on all cases in which a particular phrase could or could not be considered as a mis-statement. There would be an onus on the shopkeeper to make sure that his assistants were instructed in the correct facts about the goods they were selling. This is an important point. In reply to the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) I would say that one should not underestimate the question of whether or not people would hesitate to prosecute. I do not think that there will be cases where shopkeepers are subjected to malicious prosecutions because, after all, this is a major undertaking and involves some expense."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A; 14th March, 1968, col. 86.]
That is one side of the coin. What will happen if people undertake malicious prosecutions and they are successful? The poor unfortunate shopkeeper will have severe penal sanctions imposed on him. Just as we want to provide protection for the honest member of the public, so we must ensure that we protect the shopkeeper from the dishonest member of the public who might want to use the Bill to achieve some personal gain or to bring a malicious prosecution against a shopkeeper.

Mr. Darling: Hon. Members on both sides of the House are agreed that the Bill must cover oral misdescriptions. It is right that concern should be expressed for the trader who accidentally or

innocently offends against the terms of the Bill, but I wish that hon. Members would express as much concern for the customer who might be misled, who might suffer financial damage as a result of being misled, and who, because the trader concerned does not give him the redress to which he is entitled, takes the case to the weights and measures inspector. No doubt the inspector will have a new title when the Bill reaches the Statute Book. Whatever his title, he will decide whether to approach the trader to see whether the grievance alleged by Mrs. Jones can be put right, or to prosecute.
I am concerned about the customer. It is true that there are traders—and not all of them are doorstep salesmen—who swindle their customers. The Bill is concerned primarily with looking after the interests of the aggrieved customer. I agree that it will provide protection for the honest trader. If we weaken the Bill so that people acting on behalf of aggrieved customers cannot stamp out practices which we know ought to be eradicated, we will fail in our purpose. We therefore look carefully at any suggestions which might weaken the Bill.
With due respect to the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Dudley Smith) I suggest that he has not read the Bill properly, because according to him the trader will have an adequate defence under Clause 23. When hon. Members talk about the possibility of malicious prosecutions, they should remember that the courts can, and do, deal with these. Let us assume that the Mrs. Jones referred to by the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) decided to bring a malicious prosecution. She would not, of course, do it under this Measure. No weights and measures inspector would act on her behalf. She would have to bring the action herself, and stand the costs involved. The trader would resist the action, and he would be backed by his trade association. I am convinced that the courts would deal with such a malicious prosecution and that Mrs. Jones would have to bear the costs of her action. That would deter anybody else from bringing malicious prosecutions.
Mrs. Jones would be trying to get her money back, and she would therefore start a civil action, because, as the hon. Gentleman said, this Measure does not provide for civil damages. It is concerned


with criminal offences. Mrs. Jones would have to bring her action for civil damages under the Misrepresentation Act. The hon. Member, as he did in Committee, referred to the heavy penalties quite rightly provided in this Bill, but they are maximum penalties, and if a prosecution is successful the court will inflict the kind of penalty that fits the crime. I would agree with the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) that this is a matter which we can leave to the discretion and good judgment of the courts.
I am concerned with the argument which hon. Members have repeatedly used that if we leave all the discretion and restriction in the Bill in the form it is in now this will deter shopkeepers and shop assistants from giving information. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) had what I think is the real answer to this, and we are in perfect agreement about it. We need more and more information to be given with goods. By leaving his reference to oral misdescription in the Bill in the way it is now it will encourage manufacturers to provide the printed information on the label or in some other way. To provide an informative label is something we all want.
Let us look at this in practice. I do not want to take any of the examples given by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) who has the most curious experiences when drinking, or shopping or even canvassing on behalf of his political party. The revelations we have had from him in Committee have surprised me.
It is true that the Molony Committee was worried about the possibility of malicious prosecutions, and in my view the Committee did not take sufficient note of the actions which the court could take against people who bring malicious prosecutions. Recommendations were made which in fact have gone into the Bill in the way the Molony Committee, by and large, required that create criminal offences. At the time the Molony Committee was reporting the Misrepresentations Act under which civil damages could be ordered if individuals with a grievance cared to take action was not on the Statute Book. As I mentioned in Committee, fortunately some local

authorities have given their experiences of what is likely to happen when the Bill goes on the Statute Book. In a sense they have anticipated the Bill even though they have had no sanctions behind what they do. The experience of the consumer protection advisory officer in Sheffield is that in 90 per cent. of the cases where a customer has a legitimate grievance against a shopkeeper, usually for an oral misdescription, by informing the shopkeeper that the customer has a grievance the shopkeeper puts the matter right. This is going to happen repeatedly. The shopkeeper not only wishes to avoid a prosecution, but also values his goodwill and if it is known among the community that if one trades at Mr. So-and-so's and something goes wrong he always puts it right to the satisfaction of the customer, that kind of advertisement, if you will, by word of mouth building up the goodwill of the trader, is tremendously important.
6.45 p.m.
I cannot understand why hon. Members opposite keep on pressing the case that the shopkeeper is not going to give information, that shop assistants will be told they must keep silent when trying to sell things to the customer. If the customer asks, "Will this garment wash?" and there is no informative label, as there should be, the shop assistant has to say something otherwise the customer will walk out of the shop. Therefore, I would rather take the experience I am quoting where the aggrieved customer goes to the appropriate officer of the weights and measures authority and he takes up the phone and says that Mrs. Jones has come in and is complaining about a carpet and seems to have a genuine case and asks that it be looked into. In 90 per cent. of cases the matter is put right without delay. If not, action can be taken under the Misrepresentations Act to get civil damages, which is the most likely thing to happen in these cases. But if action is taken by the weights and measures inspector, or he contemplates taking proceedings, he has to look at Clause 23 of this Bill which says—
In any proceedings for an offence under this Act it shall…be a defence for the person charged to prove—

(a) that the commission of the offence was due to a mistake or to reliance on information supplied to him or to the act or default


of another person, an accident or some other cause beyond his control; and
(b) that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence by himself or any person under his control."
In most cases this is a perfect defence if the trader is innocent. No weights and measures inspector is going to contemplate spending public money on a prosecution unless he is certain that the defence will not stand.

Mr. Crouch: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. If I may take up the case he gave us of going into a shop and asking the assistant "Will this garment wash?" the right hon. Gentleman says that the salesman will say something. He may well say the wrong thing. He may say it will wash but will not say at what temperature, or that it should be hand washed and not washed in the machine, although information to this effect has been given to him by the supplier. He could make a mistake.

Mr. Darling: I was trying to follow up the argument of the hon. Member for Canterbury. The label should be attached to the garment, but if it is not there, instead of making an off-the-cuff reply, the shop assistant, if this Clause goes through, will have to take care. This is important. The shop assistant will have to say, "I do not know, but I will find out".
If the Amendment is added this plea that we are making that the shop assistant should take care is weakened. That is why I do not want to see the Amendment accepted and I hope my hon. Friends will not accept it. I am convinced that the experiences I have quoted will be the common experiences. The decent honest shopkeeper is going to put complaints right, but if by some chance an innocent shopkeeper is threatened with a prosecution those who are threatening the prosecution have to look very carefully at Clause 23, because that provides an adequate defence, and the weights and measure inspector has to make sure he has a prosecution that will not be knocked down by that defence.
I cannot see the possibility of honest shopkeepers suffering under this Bill, but I can see the decent honest customer being defrauded and misled and suffering finan-

cial damages if we weaken this Clause in the way suggested by the Amendments put forward.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Hon. Gentlemen opposite have made great play with their fears—I think, legitimate fears, although perhaps greater than the difficulties which will be encountered would warrant. I was not quite clear whether the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) was suggesting that he had to use oral misdescriptions to get people to vote for the Conservative candidate, but I understand that life seems very complex for him.
Amendment No. 4 raises two issues, whether the Bill should distinguish between oral and other forms of misdescription by making oral misdescription an offence only where there is fraud or recklessness, and whether persistence should also be part of the offence. We discussed these points at great length in Committee, as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) has said, when a similar Amendment was rejected, and I am afraid that I still regard the principle as completely unacceptable. I disagree strongly with the view that the consumer would be adequately protected if the law were concerned only with acts which could be shown to be fraudulent or reckless.
It is equally wrong to suggest that the Bill would create hardship and injustice for traders and manufacturers by requiring them to be convicted in cases where most people would think the circumstances did not warrant such a result. I would emphasise that Clause 1 does not create a truly absolute offence in the same way as does some legislation which has attracted criticism recently. This was a point made by the hon. and learned Member for Darwen. The defences provided in Clauses 23 and 24 are very wide and see to that. No one will be convicted if he can satisfy one of those defences, which are designed to protect the honest traders who have taken proper care to ensure that the public are not deceived, and if a trader has a clear defence he is unlikely to be prosecuted at all.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) has clearly stated that we do not believe that there will be a series of private prosecutions with malicious intent, because it is a


major undertaking and it involves penalties even for the person who undertakes the prosecution and so I think it would be unwise to make too much of this possibility.
If a person is prosecuted and is unable to establish one of the defences I really cannot think he deserves much sympathy. The offender may have misdescribed his goods deliberately or recklessly or he may have done so through carelessness or negligence, which are also culpable. It would certainly be standing consumer protection on its head to weaken the misdescription provisions of the Bill in order to protect him.
The additional requirement proposed in paragraph (a) of the Amendment, that the offending act should have been committed persistently, still seems to me to be very strange. I cannot see why a man who is proved to have deliberately or recklessly misdescribed his goods—to have lied about them, in fact—should escape conviction unless he is also proved to have lied repeatedly. Even as an alternative I think it might present difficult problems of interpretation. For instance, I am not clear whether the oral trade descriptions would have to be identical in every respect for persistence to be shown. Since Clause 1 is concerned with applying a trade description to goods, rather than trade descriptions—in the plural—I think it probably would. This would mean that the deliberate rogue would easily evade the Bill by varying his false descriptions each time. Again, I am not clear whether a person who repeated a trade description seven times in a conversation would have displayed persistence. It would seem odd to make the commission of an offence depend upon a person's talkativeness.
In any event, it is quite inappropriate to seek to achieve the purpose of the Amendment by altering Clause 4(2). Clause 4 does not relate to the offence of applying a false trade description, which is what the Amendment seeks to qualify. It is concerned only with methods of applying a trade description, and the truth or falsity of the description is irrelevant in this context. The Amend-

ment is, therefore, misconceived in form as well as objectionable in principle, and I must ask the House to reject it.

On Amendment No. 5 I can only repeat, on the question of uncorroborated evidence, that this also was very fully debated. No court is going to convict a trader or a shop assistant of the oral application of a false trade description unless the evidence produced is sufficient to satisfy the court beyond reasonable doubt that the trade description was applied and that it was false. I hope the House will share this view.

I must in any case point out that the Amendment would not produce the intended result. The effect would be that a false trade description could be applied by means of an oral statement only if the statement itself were corroborated, not the fact that the statement was made. There would be no offence if only one shop assistant said, "This garment is made of wool" when it is not, even though there were plenty of witnesses to testify that she said it, but if her colleague backed her up by assuring the customer, "The garment is indeed made of wool", then an offence is committed. I cannot think that this is the result hon. Members opposite intend, and I must ask the House to reject the Amendment.

On the other points raised by hon. Gentlemen opposite, I do not think it would be possible for a shopkeeper to continue in business if he persistently refused to give his assistants selling the goods any information because he was frightened that action might be taken against him. I think that what he would do would be, before the goods were put on sale, to insist that they were either very clearly and informatively labelled or else ensure that the assistants acting on his behalf would have a very clear indication of exactly what was involved before they started their day's work, and this seems to me to be all to the good, not just for the consumer but for the country as a whole. I ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 135. Noes 182

Division No. 133.]
AYES
[6.57 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Awdry, Daniel
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)


Astor, John
Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Berry, Hn. Anthony




Biffen, John
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Black, Sir Cyril
Higgins, Terence L.
Pink, R. Bonner


Blaker, Peter
Hiley, Joseph
Pounder, Rafton


Boardman, Tom
Hill, J. E. B.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hirst, Geoffrey
Prior, J. M. L.


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Pym, Francis


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Holland, Philip
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hordern, Peter
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Hornby, Richard
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hunt, John
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Royle, Anthony


Burden, F. A.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Sharples, Richard


Campbell, Gordon
Jopling, Michael
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Cary, Sir Robert
Kershaw, Anthony
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Chichester-Clark, R.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Clegg, Walter
Lancaster, Col, C. G.
Stainton, Keith


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stodart, Anthony


Crouch, David
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Loveys, W. H.
Tapsell, Peter


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Eden, Sir John
MacArthur, Ian
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow,Cathcart)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Elliott, R.W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Maddan, Martin
Temple, John M.


Eyre, Reginald
Maginnis, John E.
Tilney, John


Farr, John
Maude, Angus
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Fisher, Nigel
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Gibson-Watt, David
Miscampbell, Norman
Walters, Dennis


Glover, Sir Douglas
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Ward, Dame Irene


Glyn, Sir Richard
More, Jasper
Weatherill, Bernard


Goodhart, Philip
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Webster, David


Goodhew, Victor
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Gower, Raymond
Murton, Oscar
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Grant, Anthony
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Grant-Ferris, R.
Neave, Airey
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Gresham Cooke, R.
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Gurden, Harold
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Wright, Esmond


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wylie, N. R.


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Younger, Hn. George


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Percival, Ian
Mr. Humphrey Atkins and


Hawkins, Paul
Peyton, John
Mr. Hector Monro.




NOES


Allen, Scholefield
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)


Anderson, Donald
Dickens, James
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)


Archer, Peter
Dobson, Ray
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Armstrong, Ernest
Doig, Peter
Hoy, James


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Dunnett, Jack
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Barnett, Joel
Eadie, Alex
Hunter, Adam


Baxter, William
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Hynd, John


Bessell, Peter
Ellis, John
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Bishop, E. S.
English, Michael
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Blackburn, F.
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Faulds, Andrew
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Booth, Albert
Fernyhough, E.
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Boyden, James
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Kelley, Richard


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Kenyon, Clifford


Bradley, Tom
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Leadbitter, Ted


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Forrester, John
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Freeson, Reginald
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Gardner, Tony
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Buchan, Norman
Garrett, W. E.
Loughlin, Charles


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Lubbock, Eric


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Cant, R. B.
Gregory, Arnold
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Carmichael, Neil
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Coe, Denis
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
McBride, Neil


Concannon, J. D.
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
MacColl, James


Cronin, John
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
MacDermot, Niall


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hamling, William
Macdonald, A. H.


Dalyell, Tam
Hannan, William
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Harper, Joseph
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Haseldine, Norman
Mackie, John


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Mackintosh, John P.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hooson, Emlyn
Maclennan, Robert


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Horner, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Dewar, Donald
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
MacPherson, Malcolm







Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Stonehouse, John


Manuel, Archie
Pavitt, Laurence
Swingler, Stephen


Mapp, Charles
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Taverne, Dick


Marquand, David
Pentland, Norman
Thornton, Ernest


Mason, Roy
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Tomney, Frank


Millan, Bruce
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Varley, Eric G.


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Price, William (Rugby)
Wainwright, Richard (Coine Valley)


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Randall, Harry
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Rees, Merlyn



Moyle, Roland
Richard, Ivor
Watkins, David (Consett)


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Neal, Harold
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Wellbeloved, James


Newens, Stan
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Norwood, Christopher
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Ogden, Eric
Ryan, John
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


O'Malley, Brian




Orbach, Maurice
Sheldon, Robert
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Orme, Stanley
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Woodnutt, Mark


Oswald, Thomas
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)
Woof, Robert


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Yates, Victor


Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Slater, Joseph



Palmer, Arthur
Small, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Park, Trevor
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Mr. Harry Gourlay and


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Mr. Joseph Harper.

Amendment proposed: No. 5, in page 3, line 38, after 'statement', insert 'if corroborated'.—[Mr. Fletcher-Cooke.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 128, Noes 174.

Division No. 134.]
AYES
[7.7 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hawkins, Paul
Percival, Ian


Astor, John
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Peyton, John


Awdry, Daniel
Higgins, Terence L.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Hiley, Joseph
Pink, R. Bonner


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hill, J. E. B.
Pounder, Rafton


Biffen, John
Hirst, Geoffrey
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Black, Sir Cyril
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Prior, J. M. L.


Boardman, Tom
Holland, Philip
Pym, Francis


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hordern, Peter
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hornby, Richard
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Hunt, John
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Royle, Anthony


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Sharples, Richard


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Jopling, Michael
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Bullus, Sir Eric
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Burden, F. A.
Kitson, Timothy
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Campbell, Gordon
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Stainton, Keith


Cary, Sir Robert
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stodart, Anthony


Chichester-Clark, R.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Clegg, Walter
Loveys, W. H.
Tapsell, Peter


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Crouch, David
MacArthur, Ian
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Dance, James
Maddan, Martin
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Maginnis, John E.
Temple, John M.


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Maude, Angus
Tilney, John


Eden, Sir John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Eyre, Reginald
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Farr, John
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Miscampbell, Norman
Ward, Dame Irene


Galbraith, Hon. T. G.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Weatherill, Bernard


Gibson-Watt, David
More, Jasper
Webster, David


Glover, Sir Douglas
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Goodhart, Philip
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Goodhew, Victor
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gower, Raymond
Murton, Oscar
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Grant, Anthony
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Wright, Esmond


Grant-Ferris, R.
Neave, Airey
Wylie, N. R.


Gurden, Harold
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Younger, Hn. George


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Osborn, John (Hallam)



Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Reginald Eyre and


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Mr. Anthony Royle.




NOES


Allen, Scholefield
Armstrong, Ernest
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice


Anderson, Donald
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Barnett, Joel


Archer, Peter
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Baxter, William




Bessell, Peter
Hannan, William
O'Malley, Brian


Binns, John
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Orbach, Maurice


Bishop, E. S.
Haseldine, Norman
Orme, Stanley


Blackburn, F.
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Oswald, Thomas


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hooson, Emlyn
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Booth, Albert
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Boyden, James
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Palmer, Arthur


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Park, Trevor


Bradley, Tom
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hoy, James
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pentland, Norman


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hunter, Adam
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hynd, John
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Carmichael, Neil
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Coe, Denis
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Price, William (Rugby)


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Randall, Harry


Cronin, John
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Rees, Merlyn


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Richard, Ivor


Dalyell, Tam
Kenyon, Clifford
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth(St.P'c'as)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Leadbitter, Ted
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Ryan, John


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Sheldon, Robert


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Loughlin, Charles
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Dewar, Donald
Lubbock, Eric
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Slater, Joseph


Dickens, James
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Small, William


Dobson, Ray
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Doig, Peter
McBride, Neil
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Dunnett, Jack
MacColl, James
Stonehouse, John


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Macdonald, A. H.
Swingler, Stephen


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Taverne, Dick


Eadie, Alex
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Thornton, Ernest


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mackenzie Gregor (Rutherglen)
Tomney, Frank


Ellis, John
Mackie, John
Varley, Eric G.


English, Michael
Mackintosh, John P.
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Maclennan, Robert
Wainwright, Richard (Coine Valley)


Faulds, Andrew
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Fernyhough, E.
MacPherson, Malcolm
Watkins, David (Consett)


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Manuel, Archie
Wellbeloved, James


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mapp, Charles
Wilkins, W. A.


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Marquand, David
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Forrester, John
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Freeson, Reginald
Millan, Bruce
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Gardner, Tony
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Garrett, W. E.
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Woof, Robert


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Yates, Victor


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)



Gregory, Arnold
Moyle, Roland



Grey, Charles (Durham)
Neal, Harold
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Newens, Stan
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Norwood, Christopher
Mr. Neil McBride.


Hamling, William
Ogden, Eric

Clause 9.

INFORMATION, ETC. TO BE GIVEN IN ADVERTISEMENTS.

Amendment proposed: No. 33, in page 6, line 26, leave out Clause 11.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 128, Noes 175.

Division No. 135.]
AYES
[7.16 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Eden, Sir John


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)


Astor, John
Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Farr, John


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Bullus, Sir Eric
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Awdry, Daniel
Burden, F. A.
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Campbell, Gordon
Gibson-Watt, David


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Cary, Sir Robert
Glover, Sir Douglas


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Chichester-Clark, R.
Goodhart, Philip


Biffen, John
Clegg, Walter
Goodhew, Victor


Black, Sir Cyril
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Gower, Raymond


Boardman, Tom
Crouch, David
Grant, Anthony


Bossom, Sir Clive
Dance, James
Grant-Ferris, R.


Brinton, Sir Tatton
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Gurden, Harold


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Hall, John (Wycombe)




Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Sharples, Richard


Harrison, Brian (Malden)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Miscampbell, Norman
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Hawkins, Paul
Monro, Hector
Stainton, Keith


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
More, Jasper
Stodart, Anthony


Hiley, Joseph
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Stocklart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Hill, J. E. B.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Tapsell, Peter


Hirst, Geoffrey
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Murton, Oscar
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Holland, Philip
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Hordern, Peter
Neave, Airey
Temple, John M.


Hornby, Richard
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Tilney, John


Hunt, John
Osborn, John (Hallam)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Jopling, Michael
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Ward, Dame Irene


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Weatherill, Bernard


Kitson, Timothy
Percival, Ian
Webster, David


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Peyton, John
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Wills, Sir Geraid (Bridgwater)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Pink, R. Bonner
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Loveys, W. H.
Pounder, Rafton
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Wright, Esmond


MacArthur, Ian
Prior, J. M. L.
Wylie, N. R.


Maddan, Martin
Pym, Francis
Younger, Hn. George


Maginnis, John E.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James



Maude, Angus
Rees-Davies, W. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Mr. Timothy Kitson and


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Mr. Hector Monro.




NOES


Allen, Scholefield
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mackie, John


Anderson, Donald
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackintosh, John P.


Archer, Peter
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Maclennan, Robert


Armstrong, Ernest
Forrester, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Freeson, Reginald
MacPherson, Malcolm


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Gardner, Tony
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Garrett, W. E.
Manuel, Archie


Barnett, Joel
Gourlay, Harry
Mapp, Charles


Baxter, William
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Marquand, David


Bessell, Peter
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mason, Roy


Binns, John
Gregory, Arnold
Millan, Bruce


Bishop, E. S.
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Blackburn, F.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Boardman, H, (Leigh)
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Booth, Albert
Hamling, William
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Boyden, James
Hannan, William
Moyle, Roland


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Neal, Harold


Bradley, Tom
Haseldine, Norman
Newens, Stan


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Norwood, Christopher


Brown, Bob (N'C'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hooson, Emlyn
Ogden, Eric


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
O'Malley, Brian


Buchan, Norman
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Orbach, Maurice


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Orme, Stanley


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Oswald, Thomas


Carmichael, Neil
Hoy, James
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Coe, Denis
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Concannon, J. D.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Palmer, Arthur


Cronin, John
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Park, Trevor


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hunter, Adam
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Dalyell, Tam
Hynd, John
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Jay, Rt. Hn, Douglas
Pavitt, Laurence


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pentland, Norman


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kenyon, Clifford
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Dewar, Donald
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Leadbitter, Ted
Price, William (Rugby)


Dickens, James
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Randall, Harry


Dobson, Ray
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Rees, Merlyn


Doig, Peter
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Richard, Ivor


Dunnett, Jack
Lomas, Kenneth
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Loughlin, Charles
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lubbock, Eric
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Eadie, Alex
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Ryan, John


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Sheldon, Robert


Ellis, John
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


English, Michael
MacColl, James
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Macdonald, A. H.
Slater, Joseph


Faulds, Andrew
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Small, William


Fernyhough, E.
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)







Stonehouse, John
Wainwright, Richard (Coine Valley)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Swingler, Stephen
Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Woof, Robert


Taverne, Dick
Watkins, David (Consett)
Yates, Victor


Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)



Thornton, Ernest
Wellbeloved, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Tomney, Frank
Wilkins, W. A.
Mr. Harry Gourlay and


Varley, Eric G.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Mr. Ernest G. Perry.


Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George

Clause 11.

FALSE OR MISLEADING INDICATIONS AS TO PRICE OF GOODS.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 7, line 6, leave out 'for a substantial period'.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment, as they are connected, we could take Amendment No. 9.

Mrs. Dunwoody: The hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) put forward an Amendment in Committee which would have replaced the words "a substantial period" in subsection (3,a,ii) by the words "at least 14 days". My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) agreed that there was much to be said for specifying a definite period here and undertook to consider the matter further before Report. This we have done and have concluded that a change would be desirable in this provision.
As it stands, it provides that an indication of the previous price of any goods shall as a general rule—that is, in the absence of an express statement to the contrary—be taken as an indication that the goods were offered at the previous price for a substantial period within the preceding six months. We have recognised that the imprecision of the words "a substantial period" could create uncertainties for traders, and for enforcement authorities. A retailer would not be sure for how long he must have been offering goods at a higher price before he is entitled to draw attention to a price reduction, or for how long thereafter he could legitimately continue to make the claim.
We accept, therefore, that it would be preferable to specify a definite minimum

period here. We feel that, for the generality of goods, the period of 14 days proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Darwen is too short a time to establish a genuine price from which it would be fair to claim a reduction without any qualification. In our view, an appropriate basis for such claims would be that the goods have been offered at the higher price for at least 28 days continuously in the preceding six months. This is what our Amendments propose.
The House will appreciate that, whatever form of words is used, a general rule will not be appropriate to every case. The special case, such as perishable articles whose price fluctuates rapidly, can be taken care of by the provision which enables the seller to indicate expressly that he is not claiming to have made the sort of reduction to which the general rule applies. He could always say something like, "Last week's price 5s". But for the general run of trades we believe that 28 days is a reasonably substantial, and readily workable minimum period. I hope that the House will agree.

Mr. Michael Shaw: We naturally welcome the Amendments. As the hon. Lady rightly said, we suggested the period of 14 days. This is rather longer, but obviously we will not quibble about it, because the principle has been accepted on both sides.
I must say—and this is probably the last time we shall refer to Clause 11—that we have got considerably less than we hoped for in changes in the Clause.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are on Report. There is no provision for a debate on the Clause stand part.

Mr. Shaw: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. At any rate, we have got something. I feel that our words in Committee have been carefully thought over. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner) did not manage to succeeed by


his persuasive words in carrying our thoughts and desires even further. But, as far as it goes——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must address himself to these Amendments.

Mr. Shaw: I will deal, first, with the words "for a substantial period". I agree that 28 days is a substantial period, but it does not cover the case of someone who received a newly packaged product at a price perhaps twopence less than he had previously been selling it only three months after the sale of the old articles, thus leaving only three months for the newly priced articles to be sold. This loophole would allow the shopkeeper to reprice all his stock or get rid of it at even more disadvantageous prices. This is a serious weakness, but I cannot develop it any more. We give the Amendment our limited blessing.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 9, in page 7, line 7, at end insert:
'for a continuous period of not less than twenty-eight days'—[Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody.]

Clause 12.

FALSE REPRESENTATIONS AS TO ROYAL APPROVAL OR AWARD, ETC.

7.30 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu): I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 7, line 25, after are 'insert or are of a kind'.

Mr. Speaker: I think that it would be convenient to discuss, at the same time, Government Amendment No. 11, in page 7, line 38.

Mr. Mallalieu: Both Amendments are part of the tidying up operation suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) in Committee. At present, subsections (1) and (2) deal only with false indications of royal patronage, approval or award. Subsection (3) deals with false indications that goods or services are of a kind supplied to any person, which includes members of the royal family. Amendment No. 10 would extend subsection (1) to cover this latter kind of indication in so far as it concerned

members of the royal family. The division of the Clause as proposed in the Motion would then make the present subsection (3) into a separate Clause. As a result, all the offences concerning royalty would be together in one clause.
The fact that the legislation contains provisions about false representations about goods supplied to other persons would become evident from the reference to the new Clause in the "Arrangement of Sections" index to the Bill. Otherwise, there would be no such indication in the index, to which lawyers and others will naturally turn when considering whether there is anything in the statute relevant to a particular case, and the omission could be confusing.
An incidental effect of the change would be some narrowing of Clause 20(3) which provides that it shall be an offence for anyone in this country to assist or induce the commission in another country of an act which, if committed here, would be an offence under Clause 12. Clause 20 does not deal with everything which in this country would be an offence under the Bill: we are not trying to write a law of misdescription for other countries. It is intended to bite only on certain acts which are likely to be particularly harmful to British export interests. False representations of royal approval or award are certainly of this kind, but there is no strong reason why Clause 20 should extend to false claims that goods are of a kind supplied to any private person.
I hope that the House will agree that this rearrangement will improve the Bill.

Mr. Michael Shaw: We fully support the Amendment. I accept the hon. Gentleman's assurance that this omission would be confusing, although I have not checked it. It is particularly important that the Clause should apply to goods sold abroad, where these designations are at least as important as at home because of the high regard for royalty in many countries abroad. I fully accept the need for the Amendment which I assume will be made in another place to Clause 20——

Mr. Mallalieu: As I understand, no Amendment is necessary to Clause 20, since these Amendments would achieve the desired result.

Mr. Shaw: Yes, I see the point, because the other pertains to Clause 13. We support the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 11, in page 7, line 38:
That Clause 12 be divided; and that subsections (1) and (2) do constitute Clause 12 and that subsection (3) be another Clause.—[Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu.]

Clause 13.

FALSE OR MISLEADING STATEMENTS AS TO SERVICES, ETC.

Mr. Goodhart: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 8, line 1, after 'nature', add 'or location'.
Clause 13, dealing with the provision of services and facilities, covers when, how, what and by whom services are to be provided, but there is no mention of where they will be provided, except, in subsection (1,v), in respect of accommodation. Location can also be important. For example, coloured television sets, which often go wrong, might be sold under the wholly inaccurate statement that service and repair were available in a certain place, when they were available only at some much less convenient place.
It could be argued that Clause 13 would already catch that, under subsection (1,ii) but a lawyer in my locality with considerable experience of prosecuting in similar cases has told me that the courts rightly take a very narrow interpretation of such words as "nature" in a criminal offence. The defence could argue that, if the time at which the service is provided and those providing it are specificially mentioned, the omission of reference to location must be deliberate and therefore that it was not intended that this sort of case should be caught.
I suggest that location is as important as time and that the Amendment could do no harm.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman, but Clause 13 already covers all the examples of false statements about the place where a service is to be performed which he has in mind. We cannot think of any which would not be covered without the Amendment. He argued that,

since paragraph (iii) of subsection (1) refers specifically to the time and manner of the service, it might be contended that the omission of location was deliberate. I cannot agree. Time and manner were expressly mentioned because there was a doubt whether all such statements would otherwise be covered. I am advised that there is no such doubt in respect of the place where a service is to be performed.
I know that the House will not want unnecessary words included in the Bill and I hope that the hon. Member will agree to withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Michael Shaw: Do I understand that, if a visitor were attracted to a hotel in Scarborough by an advertisement that it was within two minutes of the sand when it was a quarter of an hour away, such representations would be caught?

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The sort of statement described by the hon. Gentleman as to the nature of the services or facilities provided would be caught under the Bill as drafted.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in page 8, line 26, at end insert
'and fundamental to any contract that there may be'.
The words of this Amendment might appear at first sight to apply to the Divorce Reform Bill, from the discussion of which I have just come. It deals, however, with a quite different form of contract. "False" is defined in the Clause as meaning
…false to a material degree…
That, I suppose, means false to a substantial degree. In other words, it is not a trivial matter.
I am advised that this may not be adequate for the foundation of a prosecution. Although I am not an expert in these matters, the legal advice I have received has led me to table the Amendment, since it seems desirable, in the circumstances of that advice, to discover what the Department considers to be the position. One could state all sorts of falsities which would be
…false to a material degree…
but which are not fundamental to a contract. This seems a relevant point and one must consider the side effects that might flow in respect of a contract.
I suggest, therefore, that the Amendment would strengthen the Clause and assist the courts in this respect.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) for his explanation of the Amendment. Clause 13(4) defines the word "false". The Amendment seeks to provide that one of the ingredients in the definition shall be
…fundamental to any contract that there may be".
This concept is meaningless in relation to a definition of the adjective "false", though it could have some meaning in relation to a false statement and, as I understand it, this is what the hon. Gentleman has in mind.
I am advised that the question of what is fundamental to a contract is not always easy to decide and, indeed, has on a number of occasions exercised the best legal brains in the country. It can only be determined by taking into account all the factors relevant to a particular contract. As the Clause stands, it creates the straightforward offence of knowingly or recklessly making a statement about the specified matters which is false to a material degree. The courts are perfectly well able to determine what degree of falsity is material in a particular case. I am sure that nothing but disadvantages would result from complicating the interpretation of the provisions by importing difficult concepts from the law of contract.
I am also advised that the Amendment would narrow the scope of the Clause severely. Not every statement made prior to the formation of a contract becomes a term of the contract, however much it may influence one of the parties to enter into it; and not every term of a contract is fundamental in the legal sense, even though it may be very important to one of the parties. I can see no justification for limiting the Clause to those statements which would be fundamental to any contract that might exist for the performance of the service in question.
As it is, we have restricted the Clause to cases where a person makes a false statement knowingly or recklessly, and it is hard to see why the commission of an offence by such a person should de-

pend upon the legal analysis of the terms of any contract that he may have with persons whom he has deceived.
There are other anomalous aspects to the Amendment. The possibility of a rogue drafting his contract so as to narrow the scope of the fundamental terms to the smallest possible area is one example. We are familiar with the ingenuity which is shown in the framing of exemption Clauses, and the Amendment would give rise to further efforts in this field. Another effect might be that a false statement would be an offence only if the person who made the statement knowing it to be false also knew that it would be a fundamental term of any contract that resulted.
All the arguments seem to be against making the Amendment, and I must ask the House to reject it.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: In view of the hon. Lady's reply, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 16.

RESTRICTION ON IMPORTATION OF GOODS BEARING INFRINGING TRADE MARKS.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 9, line 4, after 'proprietor', insert 'or registered user'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): I suggest that it would be convenient for the House to consider, at the same time, Amendment No. 15, in page 9, line 7, after 'proprietor', insert 'or registered user'.

Mr. Mallalieu: When we discussed the Clause in Committee the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) proposed three Amendments referring to registered users of a trade mark, two of which were identical to those which I am now moving. At the time, an undertaking was given that we would look into the matter further. This we have done, and we agree that the Amendments are both desirable and feasible.
They would extend to registered users of a trade mark the right which the Clause at present confers solely on the


proprietor of the mark, to require Customs to prevent the import of specified consignments of goods bearing an infringing trade mark. There may well be cases where the registered user wants prompt action to be taken and cannot get the proprietor to act in time.
The hon. and learned Gentleman also put forward an Amendment to subsection (1)(c) to refer to the registered user's "exclusive right" to use of the trade mark. I am advised that this would be incorrect, since only the proprietor has that "exclusive right", and that no Amendment to this provision is needed.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I am grateful to the Minister of State for accepting two of my three suggestions, and I will not quarrel about the third. It would have fulfilled a long felt want on my part had he been able to accede to the substance of my third and large Amendment, which would have put certain duties on the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to protect the trader, proprietor and the registered user—duties which are now unfortunately to be entirely lifted. However, so far as it goes, I am grateful for the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 15, in page 9, line 7, after 'proprietor', insert 'or registered user'.—[Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu.]

Clause 23.

DEFENCE OF MISTAKE, ACCIDENT, ETC.

Mr. Gardner: I beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 13, line 17, leave out from 'mistake' to end of the line.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that it would be convenient for the House to discuss with this Amendment the following Amendments: Nos. 17, 19, 21, 22, 23 and 24.

Mr. Gardner: That is indeed acceptable to me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am glad that the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) has returned to the Chamber after his brief absence, I hope refreshed, because at an earlier stage we had a considerable ornithology and I wanted to

reassure him that, on whatever side we were some time ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Haseldine) and I are on this occasion on the side of the hawks. A little while ago we were somewhat overwhelmed—indeed embarrassed—at the support of the official Opposition for one of our Amendments. I am therefore convinced that we are now on the side of the angels because, with the notable exception of the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) my hon. Friend and I now sit on the back benches in lonely isolation.
We come to one of the most important Clauses, because it provides the defences which a person can use to avoid a successful prosecution under the Bill. The defence with which we are most concerned is
…that the commission of the offence was due to a…reliance on information supplied…
This is a reasonably new concept and one which will provide an almost unlimited defence for almost anyone coming within the provisions of the Bill.
As we had a long discussion of this in Committee, I will not go over the ground again. We were obliged to withdraw a similar Amendment in Committee after some assurances from my right hon. Friend. The outcome is that the Government have tabled an Amendment which would have the effect of identifying the informant should the defendant in a case brought under the Bill claim that he relied on information received. This is to be welcomed, but I am afraid that it goes nowhere near enough to meeting the requirements which we sought. I therefore hope that the Minister will seriously reconsider the position which the Government have taken on this matter.
This concern is still shared by all responsible bodies with experience of consumer protection—the Consumer Council, the Retail Trading Standards Association and, I believe, the Consumers' Association. They advise that the Clause as at present drafted would allow far too many people to escape its provisions.
We understand that the Amendments which were made to the original Bill in another place were tabled to meet some important and, I believe, understandable representations made by the advertising profession. It is true that, without the


phrase "reliance on information supplied", a creative advertising agency relying on, say, a specification relating to a product provided by a manufacturer, would have little defence. Advertising agencies, as we discussed earlier, are not scientific experts and we accept that the most reputable agency must rely on information provided by the manufacturer. I have no desire to not afford genuine advertising agencies this protection. If this is the problem, it can be met by the group of Amendments relating to Clause 24, which would have the effect of writing into the Bill the much broader defences written into the Medicines Bill.
8.0 p.m.
This would mean that the creative advertising agency, as distinct from the advertising manager putting advertisements in the local newspaper, would be able to rely, not merely on the advertisement but on the specifications received from the manufacturer. If these were wrong and the advertiser had no means of checking them, he should have that claim. This would be a far better way of meeting a genuine claim. If these words remain in the Clause they will not merely cover the problem of the advertiser, but will let through almost any unscrupulous trader who has good legal advice.
As I tried to suggest on Second Reading, this would allow a dishonest and unscrupulous trader to drive a coach and horses through the provisions of the Bill. This view is shared by the Consumer Council, and we should take note of what it says. It was set up by the Government to advise on consumer matters and the Council has adequate legal services available to it. Referring to whether a prosecution would follow, it says:
Unless it is certain that either the defendant or his informant can be charged with the offence, we fear that the dishonest trader will be free to rig his sources so that proceedings will founder on the defendant's plea that he relied innocently on false information.
The hon. Member for Beckenham amused us in Committee with his story of the weeping secretary. If a subsequent Government Amendment is accepted this evening, a defendant pleading reliance on information would have to identify the sources of his information, but suppose the source turned out to be a junior official or the weeping secretary. Does

anyone seriously suggest that further proceedings would be taken against those informants?
Take the case where the informant is beyond the jurisdiction—our old friend the Belgian carpet manufacturer. We have had difficulties with such people in the past because of false descriptions about carpets being given to British traders. Suppose the trader claims that the description says that the carpet is made of one material yet it is made of another. We would lose the prosecution against the really guilty person and have no means of getting at the informant.
I am grateful for the advice of the one organisation which has real experience in prosecuting—the Retail Trading Standards Association. It suggested what might happen in a case should this Clause go unamended. Take the case of a trader who obtained a stock of very good blue shirts which looked rather like R.A.F. officers' shirts. He might think it a good advertising ploy to get rid of them by advertising them as "R.A.F. officer-type shirts". If a prosecution were brought saying that this was a false trade description, he could bring in evidence his advertising adviser and perhaps his secretary.
They could say that a telephone call had been made to the Ministry of Defence and someone at the other end of the line said, "That sounds O.K." Then the issue would go before the court and the Ministry of Defence, in its wisdom, may say that it had never heard of that telephone call, but before the court there would be three witnesses and lots of things can go wrong over the telephone. The court would never convict when faced with those witnesses and the rather doubtful evidence which the prosecution might be able to bring.

Mr. Michael Shaw: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that this sort of case arises every day in magistrates' courts? A defendant says that he was on such and-such premises because someone invited him there, but it is up to the magistrates to decide whether the defendant is telling the truth. This sort of decision has to be taken by magistrates every day of the week.

Mr. Gardner: Earlier during this Report stage powerful arguments were put forward that this is a Bill with


criminal sanctions in it and that lay magistrates are very wary about convicting on oral descriptions. Equally, lay magistrates would be wary of convicting in these cases and some people would get away with it. For these reasons the Clause offers too great a defence to the unscrupulous individual.
I make a plea to my hon. Friend to see that something should be done, even at this late hour, to meet our request. In effect, we are replacing the Merchandise Marks Act and bringing in a defence which was never available to a defendant under those Acts. I ask—in the nicest possible way, for my hon. Friend has been very charming to us—that she should consider her attitude towards this Clause and see if she can make the Amendments we suggest.

Mr. Dudley Smith: The hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner) has put forward a fairly plausible case, but does he not think that in the kind of situation he illustrated the witnesses would be running a very severe risk of being prosecuted for perjury? My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Michael Shaw) explained that magistrates every day have to deal with this kind of case and to use their judgment.
We must have adequate defences for the innocent. The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) challenged me in a previous debate and referred me to Clause 23, saying that this was a very adequate defence as drafted for the innocent person who had nothing whatever to fear if he came before the courts. I feel strongly that if we carried this Amendment and deleted the phrase,
or to reliance on information supplied to him
many innocent people would be put in serious difficulty if a combination of circumstances conspired to bring them before the courts.
The hon. Member gave an illustration about R.A.F. shirts, but suppose an ordinary trader was selling blankets and was told by a reputable company that if a certain kind of blanket was washed in a certain way it would be perfectly all right and he passed on the information in good faith but it turned out to be wholly untrue. Suppose there was

some mistake and subsequently the company withdrew the product from the market. Should the retailer then be prosecuted because be knowingly put forward a false description? In the obscure and unlikely case, we must have this phrase in the Bill in the interests of the retailer.

Mr. Gardner: Surely the man selling the blankets would have a further defence in the default of another person provided he used due diligence and rang up the suppliers.

Mr. Dudley Smith: The hon. Member speaks of "due diligence". We are dealing not with experts, but with human beings who may have very little connection with the law and perhaps this may be the first time they have come within the realms of prosecution. People have to be protected against themselves even if they are innocent. I should have thought that in this case he might have a defence. I agree that he might well have a defence under other provisions of the Clause, but he might not, because these are all open to interpretation by the magistrates or other courts of law. In consequence, if the magistrates thought that he was relying on information which had been supplied to him, and the Clause was amended as the hon. Gentleman seeks, I think that he would be much more liable to be convicted. If we are to persist with the idea of having these offences tackled by the court, we must provide the fullest possible and most adequate defence for the individuals who are charged. I hope that the Government will resist the pressure of the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends and keep the Clause as wide as possible.

Mr. Goodhart: I do not think that the hon. Lady can be very happy about resisting the Amendment, for the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner), who moved it so ably, is a powerful member of the Co-operative movement. As he pointed out, the Consumer Council feels strongly that the Clause should be amended, and I can vouch for the fact that the Consumer Association feels the same.
Perhaps more important even than those voices is that of the Retail Trading Standards Association, which has borne the heat of battle in bringing prosecutions under the Merchandise Marks Acts,


which will now be largely superseded by the Bill. The Association has been successful in 49 out of 50 cases it has brought under those Acts. Therefore, when it expresses concern about the new position under the Bill there is good reason to take note of what it says.
The Association has gone so far as to take counsel's opinion from the barrister who successfully prosecuted in most of the cases that it brought. He expressed grave concern about the amount of warning time which a defendant is entitled to give to the prosecutor about the name of the person who furnished the false information, because it is clear that the amount of time specified will mean that the prosecution will be hamstrung in a large number of cases when reliance on false information is the main defence.
The learned counsel went on to say:
In my view, there is a serious risk that the dishonest trader will be able to manufacture a defence for himself under the present wording of the Bill.
He closed his opinion by saying:
I, therefore, feel that the dishonest trader will welcome Clause 23 in its present form and that he may use it successfully to the prejudice of the consumer and of the established honest trader alike.
Those are powerful words from a man who has carried out more successful prosecutions in enforcing the Merchandise Marks Acts than any single individual.
8.15 p.m.
Therefore, it is not surprising to find that the R.P.S.A. believes that if the Bill goes through with the Clause unamended the consumer and the honest trader will be worse off than they were before the Bill was introduced, and that the crooks will be able to drive a coach and horses through the gap that Clause 23, as at present drafted, leaves in the prosecution's case.
The point is that here we are not dealing with the small trader who may make a mistake in his oral description of some goods on his shelf but with the small minority of real crooks. They are the people who will have the skill, the facilities and legal advice to take every possible evasive action, and the Clause will be a godsend to the very small minority of traders who deliberately set out to cheat the public, and who bring

so many of the efficient, honest retailers into disrepute.

Mr. Haseldine: I do not wish unduly to prolong the proceedings, but at this juncture it is important, in supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner), to draw attention to the problem of services. The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) has also paid particular attention to this in Committee and today.
We must not overlook the deplorable circumstances of some holidays, particularly abroad, which I and other hon. Members raised in the Second Reading debate. Most travel agencies which organise holidays are careful to give good service, and do an excellent job. We do not want to cause distress or trouble to honest traders by any part of the Bill, but there are occasions when people really are taken for a ride on holidays—[Laughter.] That was quite unconscious humour. They are frequently taken for a ride in regard to accommodation described in glowing terms.
The travel organisations concerned could use the defence that this was because of information given by some other person, or was the fault of some other person. But people organising such holidays have a responsibility to the public to see that what they are advertising is good accommodation and in full accord with the brochures they produce.
There should be no objection to the amendment. We should without question stop people having the opportunity to defend themselves in the way provided by the wording we are now discussing and I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will give us some satisfaction on the amendment.

Mr. Crouch: I am not convinced by the legal and other arguments on Clause 23 which has been put forward by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner). I am not convinced by the legal argument which has been submitted by the Retail Trading Standards Association, nor by the argument put forward by the Consumer Council. Those organisations see only the point of view, which I agree is an important one, of the protection of the consumer. The Clause was also designed to protect another group of persons, that is to say, the advertising industry.
The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling), at a suggestion from me that he should consider the point, made the following statement in Standing Committee:
The advertising agent is covered in Clause 23, provided that we retain the words which my hon. Friends wish to leave out—…
Those are the words we are discussing this evening.
that the advertising agent, if he committed an offence, committed the offence in relying on information supplied to him and that he took reasonable precautions and exercised due diligence to avoid the commission of that offence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 2nd April, 1968; c. 298.]
We cannot write a better defence than that for the advertising agent. This was an answer which I was very happy to get.
The hon. Member for Rushcliffe is concerned, on the advice that he had seen, and my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) is equally concerned on the legal advice that has been presented to him through the Retail Trading Standards Association, that there may be an opportunity for the dishonest retailer, with clever legal defence, to drive a coach and horses through the Clause. This was not the view put forward to us in Committee by Government Ministers and their advisers. As I have already said, the right hon. Member, the former Minister of State, referred to the necessary protection that the advertising industry should have in this major Act which affects the industry and the promotion of products to the public. It is vital that we should give this important industry the protection that it needs. It will be in a very vulnerable position if we do not.
If we were to take out the words suggested by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe, the advertising industry would be left wide open to prosecution for mistakes made in the preparation of advertising claims on behalf of their clients. It is essential that, after proper, careful and thorough investigation, they should be able to rely on the information given to them by their clients.
The advertising industry is a responsible industry, but, as in every industry, there are irresponsible elements. I want to see the irresponsible elements brought to book. On a number of occasions in Com-

mittee and on Second Reading I illustrated the care which is taken by the advertising industry. That care is illustrated by the massive task that they perform in a volatile sphere of communication, where mistakes can be damaging to society, and to the manner in which we live and conduct our lives. I maintain that they are responsible and careful in their approach to that task.
Within the last three years there has been set up the Advertising Standards Authority, which exercises a voluntary control on advertising. The House, as guardian of the liberty of the people of the country, can be proud of this. It is a body of which manufacturers and retailers can be proud and of which the public can be proud. It is a voluntary body which makes sure that advertising is proper, responsible and correct.
It is this industry, which has set up this voluntary body, that I seek to protect. The Minister has already said that the protection is in the Bill. I do not want the House, in a moment of high emotion, to be carried away by the good arguments on both sides of the House on behalf of the consumer.
I have mentioned the activities of the Advertising Standards Authority. It has a dual function in the supervision and control of advertising, and preventing the publication of bad advertising. The chairman of this body is reported in the Evening Standard of Monday, 6th May, 1968, as having said:
Certainly, in the daily Press, we lead the world in the quality of advertising and this has a big effect on the quality of papers and vice versa. Good papers attract good advertising.
I quote that to the House to underline the fact that the advertising industry is a responsible industry which takes care to show its responsibility to society as a whole and is not just concerned with its own ends.
Television advertising is an even more volatile form of communication than the printed word. There are even stricter controls there. Statutory controls have been laid down by Parliament to make sure that the Independent Television Authority keeps its house in order. It must have come as some surprise to the House to realise that it is not possible for an advertisement to be screened until


it is first passed by an independent committee sot up by the Independent Television Companies' Association. This is an independent and responsible body.
I merely ask that the hon. Lady bears in mind the other side of the question.

Mr. Gardner: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I share his concern to protect the reputable agencies. I hope that he will agree that the Amendments would serve that purpose, particularly Amendment No. 22.

Mr. Crouch: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. This issue is not entirely black or white. There is much give and take on both sides. I am merely drawing attention to the other side of the issue.
In Committee, I asked the Minister of State for an assurance about the I.T.A.'s position. He gave me an assurance that the I.T.A. would not be regarded as a body which would be responsible for the prosecution of misleading statements in television advertisements and therefore liable. I hope that the hon. Lady will confirm that that assurance still stands. The can test and alter advertisers' advertisements before they appear on the television screen. They do not often have to do so, but on occasion they have to step in and advise an advertising agent that a certain television commercial does not come up to its high standards and must be altered or modified. Having done so, it is a party to the statement subsequently screened to the public.
I should like an assurance that the I.T.A., having taken part, as it were, in the construction of an advertising statement and having advised on the content of an advertisement, will not be liable to prosecution under the Bill.

8.30 p.m.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: These Amendments concern two of the most important Clauses in the Bill, and I can understand why we have had such a far-reaching discussion.
I wish, first, to deal with the Amendment of the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) since it is the most far-reaching Amendment. It seeks to delete both "reliance on information supplied" and
the act or default of another person

from the matters which may form the subject of a defence under Clause 23 on the ground that they open an unduly wide loophole in the Bill. I cannot agree that that is so.
I remind hon. Members that it is by no means sufficient for a person charged with an offence to show that he relied on information supplied to him or that the commission of an offence by him was due to the act or default of another. He must also show that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence. This is no light burden.
Let me give an example. Suppose that a tailor buys cloth from a manufacturer who tells him that it is all wool and then he makes up a suit from it and, relying on the information which he has been given, he tells his customer that the suit is all wool. In fact, it turns out to be a mixture of wool and rayon. If the texture or appearance of the cloth is such as to suggest to someone of the tailor's experience that it contains rayon, or if the tailor knows nothing about the manufacturer, or if he knows that the manufacturer has a reputation for giving false information about the composition of the cloth he supplies, then I do not think that the tailor could show that he had exercised all due diligence or taken all reasonable precautions to avoid the commission of the offence. If, on the other hand, there is no outward sign which suggests that the cloth is not all wool and the manufacturer is a reputable one whom the tailor has every reason to trust, then he has a defence under Clause 23, and rightly so.
I cannot deny that there may be cases in which a defendant is able to convince a court by a plausible but untrue story that he genuinely relied on information given him by another and that his offence was entirely due to the fault of someone else. In particular, he may succeed in doing this if others are prepared to conspire with him in supporting his story. However, I cannot think that this will happen often. We heard a great deal in Committee about the "weeping secretary", but I do not think that many defendants will have the benefit of such accommodating employees who are willing to perjure themselves for the benefit of their employers. Moreover, our courts are not easily taken in by dishonest


stories of the kind referred to in this debate.
The fact that the dishonest rogue may, very occasionally, be able to hoodwink a court is no argument for denying a defence to the honest trader. This is exactly what the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Beckenham would do. If a person committed an offence because of reliance on information given him by another, or because of someone else's act or default, he would be liable even though he had genuinely taken every reasonable precaution and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence.
I am sure that the House will agree that we do not want, by the Bill, to make people liable for a criminal offence in such circumstances.
May I turn now to the Amendments proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner). He seeks to delete
reliance on information supplied to him
from the matters which may form the subject of a defence under Clause 23 and to couple this with Amendments to Clause 24 which would widen the defences available under the Bill to advertising agents. As will be apparent from what I have said, it is not only the advertising agent who needs and deserves the defence that he relied on information supplied by another. It is a defence available to any person charged with an offence under the Bill and it was in fact designed with the retailer at least as much in mind as the advertising agent.
We have already taken a number of examples from the textile field, so let us now take one from somewhere else. Suppose a retailer is often asked by his customers whether the detergents which he stocks are suitable for use in washing machines. When a new brand comes on the market, therefore, he asks the manufacturer of the detergent and leading manufacturers of washing machines whether it can be used for this purpose, and is assured that it can. He knows that his wife has used it for her weekly wash and found it successful. He therefore tells his customers that the detergent is fit for the purpose of use in washing machines, but it proves to be

not suitable when used in some types of machine.
I suggest that in such a case the retailer has taken every reasonable precaution and used all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence and that he should not be held guilty of it. However, if the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend were accepted the retailer would be guilty since he could not bring himself within any of the other defences provided by Clause 23. There was no mistake or accident on his part. It is true that there may have been an act or default on the part of the manufacturer, but the commission of the offence by the retailer was not directly due to that act or default but was due to his repeating the information given to him.
Similarly, the giving of the information by the manufacturer was a cause beyond the retailer's control, but, again, the commission of the offence was not directly due to that. If the retailer is to have a defence in the circumstances—and I am sure that the House will agree that he should—the words
reliance on information supplied to him
must remain in Clause 23.
I come now to the Amendments to Clause 24 which have been proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe. Clause 24 as it now stands is a defence available to the publishers of advertisements and to persons who merely arrange for the publication of advertisements, and I think this was the point that particularly concerned the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch). In other words, it is available to newspaper proprietors, television companies and other medium owners and to agents who arrange for publication without playing any part in drawing up the advertisement. Such persons have a defence if they do not know and have no reason to suspect that the publication would amount to an offence.
The Amendments proposed by my hon. Friend seek to give such a defence to the advertising agent who draws up the advertisement, provided he has been given the material which comprises the advertisement by someone else. I cannot agree that an advertising agent should have a defence under the Bill merely because he does not know and has no reason to suspect that the issue of the


advertisement would constitute an offence. The advertising agent has a very large part to play in the compilation of advertisements and is often given a very free hand indeed by those who employ him. What makes an advertisement false or misleading may not be the material which comprises it but the way in which that material is presented.
For that reason I think that, having regard to what we are trying to do in this Bill, he must be required to take reasonable precautions and to exercise all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence.
I must apologise for speaking at rather great length, but the points at issue are really of the greatest importance to the Bill. I hope that what I have said will convince the House that the Amendments under discussion should not be accepted.

Amendment negatived.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I beg to move Amendment No. 18, in page 13, line 25, after 'person', insert
'or to reliance on information supplied by another person'.
Clause 23(2) as drafted provides that if a person charged with an offence intends to rely on the defence that the commission of that offence by him was due to the act or default of another person he must, before the hearing, give the prosecution such information as he has as to the identity of that other person.
During the Committeee stage my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner) put forward an Amendment designed to place a similar requirement on a defendant who intended to rely on the defence that he committed the offence because he relied on information supplied to him by another person. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) agreed with the principle of the Amendment and undertook to move an Amendment on Report to give effect to it. That is what the Amendment seeks to do.
The reason why Clause 23(2) requires the defendant to give the prosecution advance notice of the other person concerned is that it will enable the prosecution to make further inquiries. If, as a result, it finds that the defence will not stand up, it will be able to bring witnesses to court to rebut it. If, on the other hand, the evidence suggests that the

defence will succeed, the prosecution will be able, in appropriate cases, to drop the proceedings against the original defendant and to institute proceedings against the real wrongdoer. Thus, if the prosecution is forewarned, a good deal of time will be saved all round.
I hope that the House will agree that, for that reason, it is desirable that the defendant should be required to give advance notice not only where the defence on which he proposes to rely is that the commission of his offence was due to the act or default of another, but also where his defence is that he relied on information supplied by another. I suggest that exactly the same considerations apply in both cases.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 26.

POWER TO MAKE TEST PURCHASES.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: I beg to move Amendment No. 25, in page 14, line 4l, after 'goods', insert:
'and to authorise any of their officers to secure the provision of such services, accommodation or facilities,'.
The Amendment will give effect to the principle of a proposal put forward in Committee by the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke). It will amend the Clause to enable local weights and measures authorities, in addition to making test purchases of goods, to authorise their officers to secure the provision of such services, accommodation or facilities as may appear expedient for the purpose of determining whether the provisions of the Bill are being complied with.
If we give people a job to do which includes the enforcement of all the provisions of the Bill, and particularly Clause 13 which deals with false statements about services, accommodation and facilities, it seems reasonable that we Should give them power to spend money if it is necessary to establish whether the provisions are being complied with. They should, for instance, be able, if they want, to check to see whether there is any basis in a complaint which has been made to them. This is not a power which I expect to be used very frequently, but I think that it is needed.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I thank the Minister for acceding to my suggestion. It shows how, in suitable cases, we are anxious to strengthen the provisions of the Bill, and our efforts in that direction are meeting with success.

Mr. Goodhart: I welcome the fact that the Government have seen fit to make this Amendment, because it is my experience that while members of the public rarely feel that they have been done down by shopkeepers, and are rarely actively dissatisfied with what they buy in the shops, there is active dissatisfaction with the provision of services, and perhaps I might give the House one example of what I mean.
Not long ago I was talking to the proprietor of a garage in my constituency. I was making some mild comments about the servicing of cars, and saying how difficult it was to tell whether invoices were accurate. My friend pooh-poohed the idea, and more or less suggested that all garages were run by angels who did their best for the customer. He then happened to refer to electricians. Apparently in the not too far distant past he had suffered from his lights failing at frequent intervals.
He called an electrician who diagnosed the fault and said that the entire house would have to be rewired. In fact I made some minor adjustments in one of the light sockets and completely solved the problem. This experience is apt to make one feel that all electricians were crooks and that when they went about their business they ought to be accompanied by members of the Fraud Squad.
8.45 p.m.
It is my experience in fact that there is considerable suspicion in the public mind about the provision of services, more so than about the provision of goods in shops, and I am sure that this Amendment, which enables the weights and measures inspectors if they wish to tackle the problem of services, is one of the most important provisions in the Bill.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: I sympathise with the hon. Member in his experiences even if I do not always believe his generalisations. I hope this change will make his experiences better in the future.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 27.

POWER TO ENTER PREMISES AND INSPECT AND SEIZE GOODS AND DOCUMENTS.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I beg to move Amendment No. 26, in page 16, line 34, leave out from 'shall' to 'be' in line 35.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 27.

Mrs. Dunwoody: These Amendments would, in one respect only, relax the restriction in Clause 27(5) on the disclosure of information obtained by virtue of the powers conferred by the Clause. This restriction is, of course, of great importance. When enforcement officers obtain information about a trader's affairs under powers of compulsion, that information must be properly safeguarded. But we find that the wording of the present provision would hinder an important aspect of the enforcement of the Bill and a slight widening to meet this point is really necessary. I am sure that when I have explained the reason the House will agree.
As it stands the provision would prevent anyone from disclosing information which he has obtained in pursuance of the Bill unless the disclosure was made "in the performance of his duty". Since the duty of local weights and measures authorities, under Clause 25, is limited to enforcement in their own area, this would in effect bar the communication of information by one authority to another. The ability of enforcing authorities freely to consult with each other and exchange information seems to us essential to the sensible co-ordination of enforcement policies and the avoidance of unnecessary prosecutions.
To take perhaps the most obvious example: An authority discovers that goods to which a false trade description has been applied are on sale in its area, but that the description has apparently been applied by the manufacturer whose works are situated in the area of another authority. The obvious course is for the first authority to communicate its discoveries to the second, so that the latter can pursue the matter in full knowledge of the facts and without having to duplicate the enquiries that have already been


made. We therefore propose that this obstacle should be removed by a rewording which would permit officers to pass on information
in or for the performance by him or any other person of functions under this Act".
I can assure the House that the only respect in which this goes further than the present provision is in permitting disclosure to other enforcing authorities under the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 27, in line 35, at end insert:
'unless the disclosure was made in or for the purpose of the performance by him or any other person of functions under this Act'.—[Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody.]

Clause 29.

NOTICE OF TEST AND INTENDED PROSECUTION.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I beg to move, Amendment No. 28, in page 17, line 35, leave out from beginning to 'and' in line 44 and insert:
(2) No proceedings for an offence under this Act, other than an offence under section 27(5) or 28, shall be instituted by a local weights and measures authority unless they have given to the Board of Trade notice of the intended proceedings and either a period of twenty-eight days has elapsed since the giving of the notice or the Board of Trade have before the end of that period issued a certificate under this section.
(3) A notice under subsection (2) of this section must be accompanied by a summary of the facts on which the charges are to be founded.
(4) A certificate of the Board of Trade that a notice under subsection (2) of this section was given on a date specified in the certificate and was accompanied by the summary required under subsection (3) of this section shall be conclusive evidence that the notice was given on that date and was accompanied by such a summary.
This Amendment is designed to introduce a measure of flexibility into the requirement that local weights and measures authorities should not launch a prosecution for any offence under the Bill until at least 28 days after they have given notice of their intention to the Board of Trade. It has been represented to us that the application of this rule to all prosecutions under the Bill would cause unnecessary and undesirable delays in cases which are of purely local significance.
We think there is substance in this criticism. We remain convinced that it is right to provide for the Board to have notice of intended proceedings for all offences which are of national interest or involve the possibility of multiple prosecutions, and to be able to take up to 28 days for consideration and consultation in important cases, but we certainly do not want to hold up proceedings for no good reason.
The Amendment would, therefore, make two changes in the present provisions. First, it would exclude from the requirement to give notice, offences under Clause 27(5)—disclosure of information obtained by virtue of that Clause—and under Clause 28—obstruction of enforcement officers. We find it difficult to envisage that these two offences could ever be of more than local significance. Secondly, and more important, the Amendment would enable the Board to dispense with the full 28 days' notice in appropriate cases by issuing a certificate on receipt of which the local authority would be free to go ahead with the prosecution at an earlier date. These changes would not weaken the procedure for ensuring that the Board is able to exercise a co-ordinating function in relation to prosecutions which are of more than local interest, and we shall be able to take the full 28 days for consideration and consultation in cases of wider interest.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

Mrs. Dunwoody: If for any reason the Board's certificate had not been provided by the time the 28 days' notice expired, the local weights and measures authority would be free to institute proceedings. In cases which were obviously not in these categories we could issue a certificate at once and so enable the prosecution to proceed without delay. I hope the House will agree this is a sensible arrangement.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The next Amendment is No. 29. I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that in consequence of the insertion of the words in the last Amendment which has


just been carried, Amendment No. 29 will be at line 46 and not line 40 as stated on the Notice Paper.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I beg to move, Amendment No. 29, in page 17, line 46, at the end to insert:
(3) Whenever notice of intended prosecution has been given to the Board of Trade notice setting out the matters complained of shall at the same time be given to the person against whom it is intended to proceed.
(4) No proceedings in respect of any matter shall be taken under this Act if civil proceedings in respect of the same matter—

(a) are pending, or
(b) have succeeded against the person proposed to be charged.
I do not really know what effect the previous Amendment has actually had on my Amendment, but perhaps the hon. Lady will give me some guidance on that when she replies.
My Amendment is concerned with two matters. The new subsection (3) I propose is intended to provide that notification of intended prosecution is given in the case of services as well as that of goods, goods already being covered. As will be seen from Clause 29(1,a), where goods have been seized the person from whom they have been taken is informed of the results of any test. From that result he obviously can deduce that proceedings are imminent. There are, as I understand, no such provisions made in the case of services, and the new subsection (3) is intended to cover that point.
The proposed subsection (4) in my Amendment is a little more complicated. Certainly it is very complicated as far as I am concerned. I understand that it is much more complicated than my proposed subsection (3), since the Misrepresentation Act, 1967, enables people to recover in the case of almost any sort of misrepresentation. In general terms, there is some difficulty in business as between this Bill and the Misrepresentation Act. In the case of almost any kind of representation under that Act, any person who was innocent in the case of services as well as goods was covered. But it seems that someone could be sued for misrepresentation under the 1967 Act while at the same time being prosecuted under this Bill.
It is the practice in many countries where the authority of the civil law is relatively small to provide penal offences in those cases in which in more advanced countries the civil law provides adequate protection. It therefore seems a retrograde step to provide not only a civil remedy but also a criminal offence, which can be brought to bear on top of the civil action.
Furthermore, it does not seem necessary to have this criminal remedy in addition to the civil remedy. It must be recognised that people can get legal aid in actions which are being taken. This aspect arises out of the complication as between this Bill and the Misrepresentation Act, and I would appreciate the hon. Lady's advice on it.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: This Amendment in effect contains two proposals. The first one, set out in the proposed new subsection (3), is that local weights and measures authorities should be required to notify an intended defendant of the complaint against him at the same time as they give notice to the Board of Trade of their intentions to prosecute. Similar suggestions have been put forward before and we have given the whole subject careful consideration. We do not think, however, that we should be justified in amending the Bill in this way.
I believe that, in practice, there would be few, if any, cases where the proposed defendant was not already aware of what was afoot some time before the authority had made up its mind to prosecute—for instance, because of an enforcement officer calling to make enquiries or because of correspondence with an aggrieved member of the public. It cannot be said that the Amendment is necessary to enable the defendant to prepare his case, since he will anyway have adequate time for this purpose if and when the summons arrives. It is, of course, the duty of the courts to make sure that an accused person has the time he needs to prepare his defence.
Neither would the Amendment provide any special safeguard against the disappearance of evidence which might help the defence in the time which has elapsed since the commission of the offence. That may well have happened—if it is going to happen—before notice


is given to the Board of Trade. The best protection against it happening is the provision in Clause 18 that proceedings may not be brought more than twelve months from the discovery of the offence at the very latest, and, when the proceedings are summary, not more than twelve months from its commission. We see no genuine advantage to the accused in the provision proposed here. It would, however, have certain disadvantages, notably the extra paper work and formalities which it would involve, and I hope the House will agree that it should not be accepted.
The second half of the Amendment is, I understand, intended to prevent the institution of a prosecution for any offence under the Bill when civil proceedings in respect of the same matter are pending or have succeeded against the person proposed to be charged. I can see no logic at all in this proposal. Its basic implication is that criminal proceedings under this Bill should be regarded as a second-best alternative to civil proceedings, whereas the two have quite different purposes.
One of the principal objects of the Bill is to lay down high standards of care and accuracy in the giving of information about goods and services and to ensure that these standards are observed by placing a duty of enforcement on local authorities. It is irrelevant to this purpose whether civil proceedings have been taken by a person aggrieved by an act which is an offence under the Bill. Civil proceedings are the means by which one aggrieved individual obtains redress, whereas the object of this Bill is to deter or punish a deception practised on shoppers in general.
In so far as civil proceedings are started in respect of the same act as an enforcement authority wished to make the subject of a criminal charge, the effect of the Amendment would seem to be to make it virtually impossible ever to proceed with that charge, for, by the time the civil proceedings had ended, it is very likely that the period of limitation in Clause 18 would have elapsed. Indeed, the concept of being able to prosecute where civil proceedings fail but unable to prosecute where they succeed seems to me a very strange one and very hard to justify.
I am not at all sure that the Amendment as drafted would produce the

result that the hon. Member has in mind. But in any case I must ask the House not to accept it.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The hon. Lady has to recognise that the difficulty in this is that the civil proceedings that may be going on could be settled out of court, as a result of an agreement between the two parties. At the same time, under this Measure, action could be taken although there may not be a good case. It would cause a considerable amount of embarrassment.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but I hope I have pointed out that the right course would be for the authority to decide whether it was in the general interest in order to deal with the case. In all the circumstances this would be taken into account.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 38.

EXERCISE OF POWERS OF BOARD OF TRADE.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: I beg to move Amendment No. 30, in page 21, line 27, to leave out Clause 38.
Clause 38 is in a form which has been used in recent years in the many Acts of Parliament which have conferred powers on the Board of Trade. I am sure that the House will agree that it is both unnecessary and rather a bore to repeat an identical provision in statute after statute. It is for this reason that Clause 14 of the Industrial Expansion Bill provides that, for the purposes of that Act and any other Act passed before or after that Act, any functions given to the Board of Trade shall be performed by to or before the President, or any person acting with his authority. The Bill goes on, in Clause 18(2) to repeal what are generally known as the Board of Trade Clauses in all previous Acts.
The Industrial Expansion Bill has been through all its stages in this House and has recently had its Second Reading in another place. It is reasonable to suppose that it will be on the Statute Book before this Bill comes into force, particularly since the provisions of the Clause 43(2) state that this Bill will only come


into force six months after it is passed. If this Clause were to remain, I think that I am right in saying that the Trade Descriptions Act would be the only enactment extant to contain this Clause. I am sure that it would be nice to keep a little bit of history here and there, but on this occasion it would be rather a dubious distinction.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 40.

PROVISIONS AS TO NORTHERN IRELAND.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: I beg to move Amendment No. 31, in page 22, line 19, after '28', insert 'and 32'.
This Amendment is consequential on the acceptance, in Committee, of what is now Clause 32 of the Bill. That Clause provides for compensation to be paid to the owner of goods which are seized by an officer of a local weights and measures authority or Government Department in pursuance of Clause 27, if he suffers loss as a result and is not convicted of an offence in relation to those goods.
In Northern Ireland, the Bill is to be enforced, not by local authorities, but by the Ministry of Commerce and this Amendment puts the Ministry in the same position as regards the payment of compensation in Northern Ireland as local weights and measures authorities are in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 43.

SHORT TITLE AND COMMENCEMENT.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I beg to move Amendment No. 32, in page 24, line 40, leave out 'six' and insert 'eighteen'.
If I move this Amendment shortly it is not because I attach little importance to it—I attach great importance to it—but simply because we have kept the Scots out of their time for longer than they expected, and it would be dangerous to keep them out much longer.
The purpose of the Amendment is to extend the time from six to 18 months before the Bill comes into force. The reason is that there is, and will be, in the

pipeline at the time that the Bill comes into force a great deal of packaging material and other matters that can be held to apply trade descriptions to goods, and it will take longer than six months for them to work through.
I hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) mumbling and muttering. His speech in Committee has received a great deal of criticism from the trade, because he pretended that it was possible and, indeed, the normal thing for the pipeline to empty itself within six months. By the "pipeline" I do not mean merely the process from the time that the packaging material—the wrappers, advertisements and labels—comes from the printers and gets to the manufacturers, which is what the right hon. Gentleman was dealing with, but all the points from the moment of the ordering of the packaging, the labelling, and so on, up to the point of sale, which may be in the village shop, which is a small and slow-moving affair and which hitherto was entitled to sell these things but which the Bill, by the will of this and another place, will make dangerous and illegal. It is wrong, in our view, that such village shops and other trade outlets should be landed with goods which, as a result of this legislation, are not disposable. There are many other examples, but I have taken the common one.
It is idle for the ex-Minister of State, as we so sadly have to call him now—not the late Minister of State as sometimes such people are described—to say that six months is time enough. We are persuaded—and the hon. Lady will know where our persuasion comes from—that over many years the experience of a great many manufacturers is that 10 per cent. of any promotional pack is likely to be found in some shops well over six months after the date at which it was sold to the shops.
It is apparent that it will barely be possible, within the six months period from the time when the final form of the legislation is settled, not merely to get these goods off the retailers' shelves, but to deliver to the trade promotional packs which have been revised to conform to the new legislation. Moreover, it will be impossible to ensure that no offending promotional packs are available in retail outlets after the six months period has


elapsed. This only affects trade descriptions which are not at present an offence. Most of the things about which we think as being offending trade descriptions are, and will continue to be, offences under the Merchandise Marks Acts.
For the first time, substantially, price comparisons come within the offending area and until today—this will probably be so until Clause 11 is considered by another place—we did not know the provisions i1 this regard, so it is not right to say, as the ex-Minister of State said in Committee, that everyone has known about the Bill for a long time and should have got his facts right by now. It could be arguable that, almost until the Royal Assent, the final facts on Clause 11 will not be known and hints and more than hints have been held out that it would be considerably modified.
It cannot be said in this case that the very introduction of a Bill should have put people on notice to take steps themselves, so we are dealing only with the situation as it is. It is putting an unnecessary burden on industry—I do not know why the Board of Trade insists on this—to make them get all the old and possibly offending material out of the way within six months.
Things like false claims of quality or of provenance, whatever that may be, are already offences, so it is not true that rogues would have a free holiday of 18 months or so. They can be prosecuted now, not only under the Merchandise Marks Acts, but under the Weights and Measures Acts and other Acts relating to food and drugs. We are dealing only with a relatively narrow range of new offences, for which, since they are new, 18 months is not too long and in some cases is not long enough for business to put its house in order.
We could get no budging from the position by the Board of Trade in committee. They have since then had considerable representation from responsible manufacturers and traders. We have had very little concession today on any of our points. Many people attach great importance to this, and it would mean a great sense of relief to the trade if this point could be met. If the hon. Lady insists on digging in her elegant toes again, it will cause an unnecessary exacerbation of the lack of confidence between industry and

the Government. I hope that she will not run that unnecessary risk.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Crouch: This is a most important requirement which we ask of the House and the hon. Lady. This is a good Bill, although it could be better. It has open ends and relies a good deal on the sound judgment of the Minister responsible. There has been some tidying up in the last few weeks, for which we are grateful, but my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) referred to one fact which would make the Bill immediately acceptable to industry. The Bill is a step forward in consumer protection and better manufacturing and marketing approach to the consumer, but it requires industry to adjust itself in some sectors. Only a small sector will have to put its house in order, since most of industry, being responsible, knew the Merchandise Marks Acts.
Speaking with some experience of the pipeline in this respect, I know that packaged goods often carry important statements to the consumer about the manufacturers' claims or a possible price reduction. Those goods are in the pipeline now and may not appear for sale for at least six months and, more likely, 12 or 18 months. We ask the hon. Lady to treat this as a responsible suggestion for 18 months. This would give industry a chance to accept this responsible Bill and adjust itself so that it can make it work to serve the consumer and the distributing industries.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I strongly support the Bill and supported it long before it was even a gleam in the eye of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling). I have for many years supported the extension of the Merchandise Marks Acts to advertising. The Government should think again about the transition period which they are allowing industry. Six months is too short. In my constituency there are three major confectionery firms which together take most of the confectionery sales in this country. The largest of the three is a nationally known firm. It has substantial advertising interests. Indeed, in terms of advertising time on television, it is probably the biggest contributor of the confectionery interests. It


is salutary to hear the company's observations on the Clause, and——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not debating the Clause but whether the period should be six or 18 months.

Mr. Lyon: With respect, Mr. Speaker, the Clause is really concerned only with the period of time and the Amendment is designed to change that period. I am addressing my remarks to that point.
This firm has its forward print of packaging material for about four months in advanced of the time when it wishes to issue the goods. In addition, there is often a period of three months during which the goods, having been packed, are kept in storage by the firm. This means that, overall, there is, even on standard goods and packaging, an average of seven months between the original forward print and the period of issue.
In addition, there is a period during which the retailer will have the goods in stock before they are sold to the consumer. The firm estimates that, on average, this period is about two months, which means that the seven months becomes nine. This means that, even on standard goods sold in normal packaging, there is a period of more than nine months in the whole process. As I say, this is an average time and it could be longer. This difficulty is accelerated when one considers special promotional periods or lines. For example, the Easter trade for next year has already been planned and the firm is in process of printing material. This, therefore, might be caught by the Bill. It follows that if even longer periods of planning, for more special promotional boosts—gifts with items of produce involved—are involved, there may be even longer periods.
In terms of advertising films, which are now costing about £10,000 apiece, there is normally a life expectancy of about 12 months. If any of the material in a film offends against the extended cover of the Bill, that film would have to be discontinued and the firm would suffer a substantial loss.
It is clear that when. in Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough said that he had made diligent enquiries about the matter and had found that it was rubbish to consider that any firm would hold pack-

aging material for more than six months, he was looking at only a part of the picture. My right hon. Friend said, as the other part of his argument, that in any case an Amendment similar to this which we moved in Committee was not required because honest traders would already be observing the provisions of the Merchandise Marks Act; and he did not conceive of any case—indeed, he thought it impossible—when they would be caught by the misdescription Clauses of the Bill.
My right hon. Friend was underestimating the extent to which the Bill has widened the Merchandise Marks Act. It is one of the claims of the Government that they have considerably extended the cover of the legislation. They have extended it to advertising and, while I strongly support this, we must consider that we will be catching a lot of promotional material for goods which were never caught by the original Act.
Because the range is so much wider, even honest traders who at present may not be offending in terms of misdescribing will be offending when the Bill is in operation. I regret that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough used the word "honest" because it is clear that an honest trader may be in breach of the Bill because there is no provision in it which says that a man must do something dishonestly. A man can be caught for a criminal offence if he is unintelligent——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is drifting into other parts of the Measure. We are considering whether the period should be six or 18 months.

Mr. Lyon: I was dealing with the arguments adduced by the then Minister of State at the Board of Trade in support of the Clause as drafted and against a similar Amendment which was moved in Committee. I want to deal with the arguments because I am sure they will be repeated when my hon. Friend replies to this debate.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not concerned with the argument in Committee. The hon. Member must address himself to the argument about whether the period should be six months or 18 months.

Mr. Lyon: I hope that is what I am doing. I take the point that the Government are now anxious that the


extended provisions of this Bill should come into force as quickly as possible. I am glad that they have had a change of heart. I remember when this Bill was the Consumer Protection Bill. I remember when it was introduced in the last Parliament before the last election. It was dropped in the first Session of this Parliament and it has reappeared only in the second.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member's reminiscences are interesting, but he must come to the Amendment.

Mr. Lyon: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, the arguments I have so far deployed are also pertinent to this Amendment, because this is the argument of the Government for saying that this Bill should come into force six months after the Royal Assent. I am arguing that if the Government were prepared to delay for two years before they introduced the Bill, they can wait for another 12 months before the Act comes into force.
I think there is considerable force in the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) that even in that extended period it is not to be supposed that consumers will be the prey of reckless, negligent, or even dishonest traders because there already is the protection of the existing Merchandise Marks Acts. In that period the consumer will not be much less protected than he will be under the provisions of this Bill.
Even in that period it is unlikely that there will be many prosecutions under the extended provisions of this Measure. It is a noticeable feature of the original Merchandise Marks Act that they have not been a very great protection to the consumer. Much greater protection is given by the threat of civil proceedings as a result of misrepresentation. It is much more likely that a misrepresentation Act with extended provisions would be a greater protection for the consumer than an Act making criminal offences could be.
I do not think the Government are on strong ground in arguing that by this Bill we have such a substantial change in the protection given to consumers that we must have it in six months rather than 18 months. From the evidence I

have had from firms in my constituency, I am convinced that it would be desirable in justice to them and to many firms throughout the country that we should give industry 18 months in which to acclimatise itself to the provisions of this Bill.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Arnold Gregory: On the question of industry meeting the requirements of the Bill, I think it would be far more difficult to explain to the country precisely why we are debating a Bill about consumer protection and trade descriptions and at the tail end we argue for an 18 months' suspension for industry to put its house in order. The psychological effect of doing that would be absolutely confounding. We would have the dickens of a job to explain to the public precisely what we were doing.
That industry wishes to provide good products but is halted in presenting them to the public by virtue of the difficulty of meeting the requirements of packaging and printing, the public would not believe. The great proportion of packaging and descriptions have met existing legislation, and will meet the new legislation. I do not think that there is a good reason for suspending the operation of the Act for 18 months.
There will be a tremendous amount of printing material in the pipeline, but I hope that my hon. Friend will not accede to this proposal. I have made inquiries in the textile industry, and I am convinced that it can meet the requirements of the Bill in six months, because it has met the requirements of existing legislation and is not spoofing the public. It will attune itself to the new situation under the Bill as it stands within the six months' period.

Mr. Goodhart: I am normally entirely convinced by the arguments of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), who has led us through the Committee and Report stages of the Bill with immense erudition and common sense. I am sorry to part company with him at, as it were, the final whistle. But if the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) is coming over to us it would seem only fair that perhaps I should go over to the other side.
Although I voted for the Amendment in Committee, I have since re-read the speech of the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling), the final contentious speech he made as a Minister, and I am now convinced that he is right, for reasons that are not particularly creditable to the Government, because the argument that carries weight with me is that the Bill has been around for a very long time. A great deal was discussed with industry before the 1964 General Election and, apart from Clause 11, the Bill's contents have been public knowledge for two years. I find it difficult to believe that nagging uncertainty about Clause 11 will affect many manufacturers and packers. Therefore, I can see no reason why the Bill's introduction should be further delayed.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I have listened carefully to the arguments which have been put forward for delaying the coming into force of the Bill for 18 months after it is passed instead of for six as the Clause provides. But I remain wholly unconvinced that they add up to a sufficient case to justify such a delay.
I do not want to dispute about how much time manufacturers might need to change their labelling or packaging if they found that a description now lawfully in use would be a false trade description under the Bill. I am quite ready to accept that there could be circumstances in which, if this happened, a manufacturer would need something over six months to get new packs on to the market, but we have no reason to suppose that such problems will arise in practice.
When we consider the sort of descriptions used on pre-packed goods we realise that—in so far as they are factual descriptions and not of the "Woz washes whiter" variety—they relate to matters which, if misdescribed, would be false trade descriptions under the present law. Such things as composition, method of manufacture, name of manufacturer, origin, measurement, fitness for purpose and performance are all covered by the Merchandise Marks Acts; while the misdescription provisions of the Food and Drugs Acts are of a quite general nature.
The extensions made by the Bill to the meaning of trade description mostly

concern matters which are unlikely to figure on mass-produced pre-packed goods. I am not saying that there may not be some such goods bearing a description which is now lawful but would be caught by one of the new provisions of Clause 2(1). But I do say that such cases are likely to be rare; and the chances of one occurring in combination with circumstances requiring as much as six months for a change of pack seem extremely remote. We certainly have no evidence that it is anything more than a theoretical possibility.
It has also been argued that more time is needed to ensure that any misdescribed goods already in the distributive pipeline will be cleared from retailers' stock before the Bill comes into force. But this is something which could not be ensured by a delay of even longer than 18 months. Where stock control is imperfect some goods may stay in wholesalers' and retailers' stocks for very long periods. It is not unknown for something to be sold over the counter years after it left the factory. Moreover, unscrupulous and careless suppliers, at whom the Bill is aimed, may be distributing misdescribed goods to retailers right up to the time that it comes into effect whenever that may be.
We do not accept, however, that there are likely to be extensive difficulties at the retail stage, any more than in manufacturing. The vast majority of goods on the market are correctly labelled—if they are labelled at all—and will not be affected by the Bill; and if a retailer does have some wrongly labelled goods in his stock on the operative date he will, if he did not or could not have known that the labels were wrong, be adequately protected by the defences in Clause 23. Of course, if he knew or ought to have known of the misdescription, it would be up to him to remove the labels or otherwise correct it.
There is no parallel with the Weights & Measures Act and Regulations or with the labelling regulations made under the Food & Drugs Act. Those measures introduced positive requirements for labelling goods, which manufacturers as a whole were not already meeting, either in response to previous legislation or as a matter of normal commercial practice. Under the Bill, positive requirements to mark goods with prescribed information


could be imposed only by subordinate legislation. In such cases the date of operation would be stated in the individual order. The time allowed would be adapted to the circumstances of the trades concerned and would be determined after the consultations required under Clause 37.
We have given careful thought to all the representations which have been made to us on this matter, but we are not convinced that the various contingencies which are seen as theoretical possibilities are likely to give rise to real difficulties in practice. We are strengthened in this opinion by the experience of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1953. That Act extended the meaning of the term "trade description" to include fitness for purpose, strength, performance or behaviour: matters which are considerably more relevant to the marking of prepacked goods than the additions made by the present Bill. It also, for the first time, specifically made misleading trade descriptions an offence, as well as false ones. These new provisions came into

force six months after the Act was passed; and we are not aware that any serious problems occurred as a result.

To go beyond six months would, in short, be justified only by theoretical argument, and there would be a heavy price to pay. We are seeking in this Bill to provide an important new measure of protection for consumers. It would clearly be against the interests of consumers, and also of honest traders, to defer for longer than is really necessary the additional protection which is required in the fields of, for example, advertisements at large, oral misdescription and misdescription of services, or the enabling powers to make labelling orders, and so on.

All in all, we believe that six months is a reasonable time to allow and I hope, therefore, that the House will agree that the amendment should not be accepted.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 120, Noes 175.

Division No. 136.]
AYES
[9.38 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Astor, John
Hawkins, Paul
Percival, Ian


Awdry, Daniel
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Peyton, John


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Higgins, Terence L.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Hiley, Joseph
Pink, R. Bonner


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hill, J. E. B.
Pounder, Rafton


Biffen, John
Hirst, Geoffrey
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Black, Sir Cyril
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Prior, J. M. L.


Boardman, Tom
Holland, Philip
Pym, Francis


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hordern, Peter
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Brinton, Sir Tratton
Hornby, Richard
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Hunt, John
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Royle, Anthony


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Sharples, Richard


Burden, F. A.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Campbell, Gordon
Kitson, Timothy
Silvester, Frederick


Cary, Sir Robert
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stainton, Keith


Clegg, Walter
Loveys, W. H.
Stodart, Anthony


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York')
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Crouch, David
MacArthur, Ian
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Dance, James
Maddan, Martin
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Maginnis, John E.
Temple, John M.


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Maude, Angus
Tilney, John


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Eden, Sir John
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Eyre, Reginald
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Farr, John
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Ward, Dame Irene


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Miscampbell, Norman
Weatherill, Bernard


Galbraith, Hon. T. G.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Webster, David


Gibson-Watt, David
Monro, Hector
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Glover, Sir Douglas
More, Jasper
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Goodhew, Victor
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gower, Raymond
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Grant, Anthony
Murton, Oscar
Wright, Esmond


Grant-Ferris, R.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Wylie, N. R.


Gurden, Harold
Neave, Airey
Younger, Hn. George


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar



Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Osborn, John (Hallam)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Mr. R. W. Elliott and




Mr. Humphrey Atkins.




NOES


Allen, Scholefield
Gregory, Arnold
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Anderson, Donald
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Moyle, Roland


Archer, Peter
Hamling, William
Neal, Harold


Armstrong, Ernest
Hannan, William
Newens, Stan


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Haseldine, Norman
Norwood, Christopher


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Hattersley, Roy
Oakes, Gordon


Barnett, Joel
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Ogden, Eric


Baxter, William
Hooson, Emlyn
O'Malley, Brian


Bessell, Peter
Horner, John
Orbach, Maurice


Binns, John
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Orme, Stanley


Bishop, E. S.
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Oswald, Thomas


Blackburn, F.
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Palmer, Arthur


Booth, Albert
Hoy, James
Park, Trevor


Boyden, James
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Bradley, Tom
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Pavitt, Laurence


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hunter, Adam
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Hynd, John
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Pentland, Norman


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Buchan, Norman
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Carmichael, Neil
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Price, William (Rugby)


Coe, Denis
Judd, Frank
Probert, Arthur


Concannon, J. D.
Kelley, Richard
Richard, Ivor


Cronin, John
Kenyon, Clifford
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Dalyell, Tam
Leadbitter, Ted
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Sheldon, Robert


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lomas, Kenneth
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Loughlin, Charles
Slater, Joseph


Dewar, Donald
Lubbock, Eric
Small, William


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Dickens, James
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stonehouse, John


Dobson, Ray
McBride, Neil
Swingler, Stephen


Doig, Peter
MacColl, James
Taverne, Dick


Dunnett, Jack
MacDermot, Niall
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Macdonald, A. H.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Thornton, Ernest


Eadie, Alex
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Varley, Eric G.


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Ruthergien)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Ellis, John
Mackintosh, John P.
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


English, Michael
Maclennan, Robert
Watkins, David (Consett)


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Fernyhough, E.
MacPherson, Malcolm
Wellbeloved, James


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Manuel, Archie
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mapp, Charles
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Forrester, John
Marquand, David
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Freeson, Reginald
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Gardner, Tony
Mendelson, J. J.
Woof, Robert


Garrett, W. E.
Millan, Bruce



Goodhart, Philip
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Mr. Harry Gourlay and


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Mr. Joseph Harper.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. Speaker: I have posted, as is my wont, the Amendments which I have selected. The first is new Clause 1.

New Clause.

ACTIONS FOR DIVORCE.

The Sheriff Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any divorce action commenced after the coming into force of this Act.—[Mr. George Willis.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

9.49 p.m.

Mr. George Willis: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
Had I been sitting on the Opposition benches I might have been tempted to chide the Government very gently for putting Scottish business on at this time of night. I still gently chide the Government and I hope that the rebuke will be carried to the right quarters.
I hope that hon. Gentlemen have read the new Clause, which I commend to them for the elegant simplicity of the wording. I am convinced that this is a model that could quite well be followed by Parliamentary draftsmen since it is a very clear statement of what we are trying to do.
I have no doubt that I shall meet some opposition from my legal friends. I am sorry that I always do so, because I have a high regard for them. The only trouble about them is that though they are always anxious to reform the law, they are never anxious to reform their own institutions and practices. That is one reason why I come into conflict with them.
The Clause seeks to reform one practice. It seeks to give the sheriff court concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Session to hear divorce actions. This idea has frequently been put forward by members of the legal profession, as well as by a number of ordinary citizens. It has been debated in the Press during the past few years, and the matter was considered by the Grant Committee. If sheriff courts could deal with divorce cases, they could be dealt with much more

quickly, more conveniently, and more cheaply.
In paragraph 109 of its Report the Grant Committee recognised that, on balance, it would be more convenient and cheaper if divorce cases could be dealt with in the way that I am suggesting. I do not want to rehearse all the arguments, but I must make a few comments on the opinions expressed by the Grant Committee.
I was surprised to find that the Committee concerned itself solely with the question of expense to the person seeking a divorce, and did not seem to think that it mattered much if the litigant was receiving aid from the Legal Aid Fund. The Committee took the view that as most of the pursuers were eligible for legal aid, no great financial hardship was involved. I take the view that the Legal Aid Fund should be used properly and that there should be no waste of money. The Grant Committee did not mention that, but it said that this proposal would result in economies to litigants, and that they would find it more convenient to get their actions dealt with in this way.
The Grant Committee talked about the burden of work on the sheriff courts, but it did not think that there was any burden on the Court of Session. It said, in paragraph 113:
In Scotland the Court of Session has never experienced difficulty in dealing with all the divorce actions initiated.
Over the past few years we have been asked to appoint additional judges precisely because of the burden of work on the Court of Session. Some of the arguments advanced for increasing the number of judges were based on the fact that an increasing number of cases had to be dealt with. I was therefore staggered to read that the Grant Committee thought that there was no problem. Why in Heaven's name have we been asked to authorise the appointment of extra judges to deal with the additional work?
The last occasion on which we discussed the number of judges at the Court of Session was when the Administration of Justice Bill was going through the House. One of the by-products of that Measure is that the Court of Session has reverted to its former practice of having five judges sitting on Saturday mornings to deal with undefended divorce cases.


In the light of this I find it difficult to take the Grant Committee seriously.
Let us look at the argument of convenience and burden of work in another way. We are told in the Grant Report that there were 2,770 divorce actions in 1965 and that one-third of them took place in the Sheriffdom of Lanark. That is 923 in Lanark. There are 18 sheriff substitutes in Lanark, and if we divide 923 by 18 we get 51 cases per year. In other words, each sheriff substitute might be called upon to take one divorce case per week. This really cannot amount to a very great deal of extra work. We are always blinded by this mass of statistics. We have the same experience on the Administration of Justice Bill.
When we work it out we find that there would be one divorce case per week if all were done by the sheriff court, but some might go to the Court of Session. The great majority are undefended and I am told by people with experience that on average an undefended divorce case takes 15 to 20 minutes, sometimes less.
This is the great burden which we are in danger of putting on the backs of the sheriff substitutes. I do not accept this argument. Like most of the things that come from this source I look at it with suspicion. I have heard the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pent-lands (Mr. Wylie) quoting these figures, and when we examined them we found they did not make the picture he was trying to present.
On the question of convenience, I am inclined to think that it would be just as convenient for the sheriff courts to deal with divorces as for the Court of Session. Having got the support of the Grant Committee on the aspect of convenience and on the question of economies that might be effected, I am bound to say I tend to think we could deal with the cases much more speedily than is done at the present time.
I do not accept the Grant Committee's Report. I would need much more evidence than is in the Report. There is no evidence in it about the burden of work, merely the statement that the Court of Session has never experienced difficulty in dealing with divorce actions. In the light of my experience and the debates

we have had in this House I cannot accept that.
The Grant Committee goes on to the really important reasons, and I question these. In paragraph 110 it says:
In our view
this is a very profound statement—
divorce is an important matter, because it affects the status of individuals, with consequent and far-reaching effects on rights to moveable and heritable property, and also because marriage and the family have great importance in the context of social organisation.
One does not deny that it is important, but so are matters dealt with by the sheriff courts important, and I would point out that consequent far-reaching effects on the right in movable and heritable property arise out of divorce, and do not enter into consideration, I should hope, where——

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Government Business may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Harper.]

Mr. Willis: They arise out of divorce and not, surely, considerations affecting whether or no divorce should be granted. Therefore I am not influenced to a great extent by this argument.
Sheriff courts also have to consider important matters in actions of reparation for large sums of money, actions which arise out of accidents in mines and factories, and elsewhere. These are very important matters—very important matters indeed for the people involved—and the issues involved are very difficult, at times, very, very difficult. I do not think that it is an argument that this is something beyond the capabilities of sheriff substitutes in the sheriff courts.
The Report goes on to say:
Obviously every divorce action does not raise difficult legal issues, but legal questions of great importance and complexity may arise"—
this is what I call the legal mystique—
legal questions of great importance and complexity may arise, particularly in the cases based on cruelty, where the development of the law is a continuing process.


What is the position in the sheriff court? At the present time sheriff courts can entertain cases for judicial separation. Actions for judicial separation are based on adultery and cruelty. In other words, what the Grant Committee considered to be the most difficult form of case, that is, judging questions of cruelty in the relationship between a man and his wife, is already being dealt with by the sheriff court in cases of judicial separation, though this is the example particularly quoted why the sheriff court is not capable of dealing with this matter.
It is interesting that in this business the sheriff court already has concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Session in cases of judicial separation. What do we find? In 1966 there were 716 actions in the sheriff courts relating to judicial separation, adherence, aliment, and similar matrimonial cases. One assumes, I think with some justification, that the majority of these actions were actions of judicial separation. In the Court of Session the the final judgments in 1966 in respect of actions of judicial separation numbered five. So, where the litigants had a choice of court to go to they did not choose the Court of Session for this very difficult matter of judicial separation, but they went to the sheriff court, where there were 716 cases against five which went to the Court of Session. So, where there was a choice the sheriff court was accepted.
The fact that the sheriff court did this work very well is borne out, I think, by the very small number of appeals which went either from sheriff substitute to Sheriff Principal or to the Court of Session. The number of appeals from sheriff substitute to Sheriff Principal in relation to matrimonial actions in 1966 was 16. The number which went from Sheriff Court to the Inner House of the Court of Session was also small—17. I submit that these figures show that the sheriff courts deal with the difficult matter of judicial separation effectively and satisfactorily and that the litigants were overwhelmingly disposed to accept their jurisdiction as against that of the Court of Session.
I do not know that there are many other arguments which the Grant Committee raised, although there is one which will no doubt be mentioned again tonight. This is that, by retaining this work within the jurisdiction of the Court of Session,

we get uniformity of decision. I am not altogether impressed by that argument. I am not certain that uniformity of decision is necessarily good.
In England, it has been decided to have a number of cases taken in the county courts and it was obviously considered that other matters are just as important as uniformity of decision. Surely, over a period, with the discussions held between the sheriff substitutes and in other ways in order to consider matters of legal decision, there would tend to be built up a body likely to give similar decisions in similar cases—that is, if it is vitally important to have uniformity. However, the question of uniformity is the one remaining argument I think important, although I am not certain as to how much importance one should attach to it as opposed to the other relevant matters.
There is also the argument that the Court of Session is concerned at present in working out problems arising from the provisions of the Divorce (Scotland) Act, 1964 and the Succession (Scotland) Act, 1964. But if these cases had been dealt with by the sheriff courts, no doubt they would equally be engaged in precisely the same work.
I find it difficult, therefore, in the circumstances to find any valid argument against my new Clause. We would not be denying the right of access to the Court of Session. If a case were difficult, if it raised all these profound issues which could only be settled by the Senators of the College of Justice, there would be nothing to prevent its going there.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) is a solicitor. If a client came to him and said that he wanted a divorce, I assume that my hon. Friend, as a solicitor, would do his best for his client. If it was an open and shut case—and there must be thousands of such cases in which little is involved afterwards by way of children, property and so on—he would no doubt say, "This seems a simple matter and there is no need to go to the Court of Session." He would take advantage of the provision in my new Clause to gain the benefits, both financial and of convenience, which the Grant Committee admitted exist.
If my hon. Friend thought that the case was rather more difficult and that


he should get the advice of an advocate, no doubt he would get that advice and the advocate would himself appear in the sheriff court. If on the other hand, the case raised the profound issues which we are told are raised—and the Report is fair about this—in only a few cases, as a solicitor seeking to do his best for his client, my hon. Friend would say, "In the circumstances, I think we should take this case to the Court of Session."
If this argument is not accepted, then those who do not accept it are suggesting that solicitors do not really know their business and do not really attend to the needs of their clients. That is rubbish. Much as I have criticised solicitors for various things in the past, it would be quite wrong to accuse them of this. They act in accordance with what they feel to be the best interests of their client, honestly and with integrity. In the circumstances of this case, they would have the choice of three courses. They could take a course which might be taken in a lot of cases, that of simply going to the sheriff court and the solicitor might do this himself, because both solicitor and advocate have access to the sheriff court. The solicitor does not have access to the Court of Session. This is something else that ought to be looked at, to get at this closed shop. Talk about restrictive practices! This is not an occasion on which to discuss this restrictive practice, however.
On the other hand, he could, if he did not do the job himself, decide that it was

outside his scope and brief an advocate to go to the Court of Session.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member must not wander from his new Clause.

Mr. Willis: I am suggesting how this Clause would work in practice. There are so many pleasant byways down which one is tempted.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman must resist temptation.

Mr. Willis: I was about to express my gratitude to you, for drawing my eyes to the straight path of the Clause. This seems to be an improvement on the existing situation.
We are always being told that the party opposite stands for choice. Let us give the person concerned choice. This is what the Clause proposes. I hope that it will receive some support. I have tried to put the case moderately, and it ought to be discussed now by Members in order to test the feeling. I would like to think that the Government would look upon this with a fresh mind. I know what the Government's answer will be, but I would like to think that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary would tear up his brief, given to him by his civil servants, and would judge this on the merits of the arguments. That would be a courageous thing to do, and my hon. Friend would go down in the pages of history as having established a glorious precedent, one well worth following. I hope that he will approach this Clause in that spirit.

Mr. Donald Dewar: It has been a great pleasure to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) enjoying himself on one of his favourite topics. We have all watched his long-standing interest in legal matters—an interest that has not on all occasions been appreciated by members of the profession. Once again, we have had one of his energetic verbal assaults which some people find a little off-putting. I am grateful that he has raised the subject, if only because, as his speech made perfectly clear, it deals with at least one section of the very important Grant Report on the sheriff courts in Scotland.
The section to which he has referred so copiously takes up only five out of something over 320 pages of the Report, so that if we are to have an adequate debate on this subject there is plenty of room for the procedural ingenuity of my right hon. Friend in the months or years ahead.
Legal assistance ought to be made cheaper and more available, and any kind of reform such as this new Clause must be judged on these criteria alone. It is unfortunate that passions, even at this time of night, run a little high, and particularly when my right hon. Friend is under way head-on collisions are apt to be the result.

Mr. Willis: There are no passions, just a whole-hearted zestfulness.

Mr. Dewar: I thought it bordered occasionally on righteous indignation, but we will not split hairs on that. There is apt to be a head-on collision. There are those who think that anything the Court of Session does is some wicked demarcation arrangement which has been created to victimise the ordinary litigant, nothing more than a kind of black Dickensian restrictive practice.
There are those who, on occasion, seem to defend it on the ground that we should not take divorce actions or undefended divorce actions out of its ambit, because they are the basis of the financial stability of the young advocate, without which my contemporaries in Parliament House could not live up to the standards to which they think they are accustomed.
I agree that there is nothing essentially impossible in my right hon. Friend's proposals. It is not heresy beyond the pale. Even the fact that ordinary citizens have advocated it on numerous occasions should not rule it out for consideration by the lawyers.
I also agree that there is no reason why the average sheriff in the sheriff's court should not be able to deal with a divorce action. As my right hon. Friend has rightly said, at the moment they are required to deal with the niceties of reparation and fine points of the law of contract. If I remember rightly—and these are now vague memories—the examination I sat on my law course, these seem to be more complicated and more sophisticated matters than the law of divorce.
Divorce is certainly an extremely important matter. I agree that status is something which should be considered carefully and reform should not be introduced for the sake of reform. But I object to the argument we hear advanced about divorce being a great occasion—that most people are divorced only once, some even do not get divorced at all, and very few people make a habit of it—and therefore, one should not object to making the ritual trip to the Court of Session, even if it costs that bit more. Those who advance that argument I suspect have never watched a Saturday morning in Parliament House when undefended divorces are being rushed through. I must not digress, but grounds are on occasions manufactured in a way which adds little to the dignity of the law and would seem to be a strong argument for reform in that sphere.
I agree that there is a general prima facie case for reform, and I am not convinced by the Grant Committee's argument as it stands. Nor am I convinced by my right hon. Friend's arguments either. Convenience certainly must enter into it. The Grant Committee pointed out that something like five-sixths of all cases come from the central belt and do not involve a great deal of travel. Of those outside the central belt, over a quarter come from Aberdeen and the surrounding area where a bit more inconvenience might be suffered. However, this is not a sufficiently major consideration, or it has not yet been proved so to be.

Mr. Willis: Surely there is inconvenience, even in the central belt, when someone has to go to a lawyer there who then has to engage a lawyer in Edinburgh. The lawyer in Edinburgh then has to engage an advocate and if witnesses are involved they have to come along too.

Mr. Dewar: My right hon. Friend is broadening the argument. I will be meeting that point later. He will be delighted to hear that to some extent I agree on this. On the narrow point of convenience, as defined and dealt with by the Grant Report, that argument is inconclusive, though perhaps slightly weighted in my right hon. Friend's favour. More investigation has to be carried out.
The fact that a large number of people get divorces on legal aid is not necessarily a relevant argument. If we could save money on the Legal Aid Fund, or use that public money to extend the Legal Aid Fund in other directions, that would be all to the good. I have always thought that legal aid showed in a stark way that litigation is all very well for the poor and the rich, but there is a horrible no-man's land in between.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss legal aid on this new Clause, interesting as that topic is.

Mr. Dewar: I think most hon. Members will know to what I am referring. It is something that the Minister should look into at some future date.
My right hon. Friend has talked about English precedents and changes in the English county courts. I am not sure that this is a good parallel. It puts the idea into circulation, but the structure of the English court system is different. County court judges, wearing a different hat but sitting in the same courtroom can grant divorces already. Therefore, it is nothing like so radical a change as my right hon. Friend is seeking.
He also dismisses the pressure of business in too cavalier a fashion. It is a real problem in the sheriff's court. The main point he made in his interjection is a vital one. Reform of the nature he advocates has all sorts of repercussions and other consequences that follow through the whole organisation of the legal system in Scotland.
If it is thought that there is a case here, other related points must be considered, such as the fees structure, the mystical magic circle of Solicitors to the Supreme Court and Writers to the Signet, entry to the advocates' profession and the two-counsel rule. I regret that the profession is not the subject of an inquiry by the Monopolies Commission. There should be such a far-reaching inquiry of which this should be an integral part. The Government's record on law reform is good and Bills embodying the proposals of the Law Commission are becoming a feature of the Scottish legislative scene——

Mr. Speaker: All this is very interesting, but we are deciding whether divorce cases go to the sheriff court, and we must keep to that.

Mr. Dewar: Yes, Sir, and I am trying to suggest that this cannot be done in a vacuum without this kind of far-reaching inquiry. There is a case for this reform, but it cannot be done in this way in this Clause. I hope that the Government will consider this as part of a general review. I hope that my right hon. Friend will get a sympathetic hearing but will not press the matter further.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): I agree with the praise of my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) for his new Clause which is a model to us all. He tried to tempt me from the straight and narrow path and did not need the further tempting into other fields given by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar). I found the statistics that we are dealing with only five of the 300 pages of the Grant Committee slightly alarming. We can certainly look forward to a succession of very long nights.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East was less than fair in considering the recommendations of the Grant Committee. It considered this question on the basis of his three arguments of speed, convenience and cheapness and came out firmly against the proposal——[Interruption.] My right hon. Friend cannot say that the Committee's arguments were unbiased but its conclusions were biased—[Interruption.] I was thinking that I should have complimented my right hon. Friend


on having spent no more than the time taken on an undefended divorce action before referring to restrictive practices. He showed much restraint: I hope that he recognises the importance of some of the Committee's arguments and that the majority of the witnesses, as well as the Committee, thought that no change should be made.
The first question is whether this is appropriate to the sheriff court. The Grant Committee said in paragraph 114:
In a small country like Scotland the Court of Session should play the leading part in shaping and developing the law, and in doing so should dispose of a good deal of the more important civil business at first instance.
This is not just a question of uniformity, the point made my my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East. Nor is it fair merely to say that in the stress and strain of divorce one can draw the conclusion that the only important factor is that which may arise from divorce. If that which may arise is of great consequence, then the fact of divorce is of equal consequence and, therefore, it is correct to say that this is an important part of the court's function. I appreciate that this is a subtle point, but the Committee went on:
The fact that the great majority of divorce actions are undefended does not seem to us to detract from this argument; rather, it strengthens it.
It is precisely in connection with undefended actions that the Court of Session may be required to play a leading rôle.
There is a main reason why I must advise the House to reject the Clause, but first, apart from any abstract arguments, I should mention two minor reasons. The first is that accepting a proposal of this nature, without consulting the legal profession, would draw a storm not only on my right hon. Friend's head but on mine as well. The second is that it is unconnected with any of the main items in the Bill.
The main reason is that it would be impracticable to give effect to it. There were 3,696 final judgments given in divorce actions in 1966. I do not apologise for turning to my brief because I want to be absolutely accurate. Although I am tempted by the blandishments of my right hon. Friend to cast my notes aside, he will appreciate the need for an

accurate reply to this matter. About a third of all divorce actions arise in the Sheriffdom of Lanark. The effect of the new Clause in Glasgow and Lanarkshire alone would, therefore, be to allow 1,200 divorce actions to be raised in the sheriff courts in that Sheriffdom each year.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the Minister that it helps the Parliamentary reporters if he addresses his remarks to the Chair and not to his right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis).

Mr. Buchan: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. and I take note of your remarks.
While less than 50 of these would be likely to be defended actions, the volume of court business which could be thrown on the sheriff courts if the Clause were enacted would be intolerable, given the existing pressure on buildings, staff and on the time of the judges. One is aware of the discussion that has been going on in this connection and one appreciates the great amount of business that must be handled. We will be discussing this matter tomorrow in another place. Anything which relieves the pressure on the sheriff courts is to be welcomed.

Mr. Willis: I dealt with precisely this point and pointed out that the figures worked out at about one case per sheriff substitute per week. If we take the higher figures with which my hon. Friend is dealing—they were in respect of the following year, I think—we see that the amount of work involved is not as great per head as it might seem at first sight.

Mr. Buchan: I am not attempting to over-emphasise the amount of work that is done. I am explaining that the sheriff court has an important load on its shoulders and that any additional work of this kind would represent an added burden. Despite the figures my right hon. Friend gave in connection with judicial separation, we cannot estimate the proportion of divorces that might choose that course. I suggest that if we did try to make such an estimate we would be taking a step in the dark. On the other hand, it is difficult to see any corresponding problem as regards the Court of Session which might justify the new Clause.

Mr. Willis: My hon. Friend says that he does not see any comparable difficulty


for the Court of Session. He must be familiar with the debates that have been taking place over the years about the Court of Session and about the burden of work it has. Only last Christmas the Government asked for powers to appoint two additional judges.

Mr. Buchan: I agree, and Parliament allowed us to have one, so that there a reasonable compromise was achieved. I should have thought that my right hon. Friend, who had a rôle in those discussions, would have been reasonably satisfied.
10.30 p.m.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) that the situation in Scotland is not comparable with that in England. In the first place, the county courts have this jurisdiction placed upon them only in undefended actions, whereas this Clause refers to "any divorce action". In the second place, the change in England is a technical one and it will have relatively little effect upon the amount of business actually done by county court judges in county court buildings.
The question of cost is very difficult. The Committee said:
Very few witnesses tried to estimate the actual savings in cost if divorce actions were heard in the Sheriff Courts, and those who made estimates tended to arrive at rather different conclusions.
The Committee enumerated the assumptions on which in its view any calculation of savings should be made. It also spoke of the cost of providing additional judges, court staff and court buildings to deal with divorce actions in the sheriff court, and it concluded by saying:
We do not believe that the net saving would be large.

Mr. David Steel: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he would look favourably on a new Clause which restricted this to undefended divorce?

Mr. Buchan: Of course I am saying nothing of the kind. I was saying that the comparison is not a valid comparison. That is very different from talking about any argument I might deploy were the hon. Member to put forward a new Clause on those lines. It is rather difficult

to make an estimate as to any saving which might be made in this way.
The question of convenience is important. I accept the points put forward, but it is also true, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South said that a very great number of these cases come within the central belt. I do not accept that it is a real hardship when taking the climacteric step of divorcing to have to travel to Edinburgh. The Committee referred to an additional point that as opposed to those engaging in judicial separation it may be that many people like to have their divorce proceedings heard in the "comparative anonymity" of the Court of Session. For all these reasons I advice the House to reject the new Clause, but I rely on the good will of my right hon. Friend to withdraw it.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 1.

SUCCESSION IN CASES OF ILLEGITIMACY.

Mr. N. R. Wylie: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 4, leave out 'person' and insert 'woman'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): With this Amendment we may discuss the following Amendments: Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 4, leave out 'and is'; Amendment No. 3, in line 5, after first 'children', insert
'or a man dies intestate survived by illegitimate children who have at any time lived in family with him';
and Amendment No. 4, in line 31, leave out 'person' and insert
'woman, or of any man with whom they have at any time lived in family'.

Mr. Wylie: The purpose of these Amendments—apart from Amendment No. 2 which is a drafting Amendment and seems to be unexceptionable and one which I hope the Minister will accept—is to narrow the very wide provisions of Clauses 1 and 2. As those Clauses stand, in effect they put the illegitimate child in precisely the same position as a child of the marriage, in Clause 1 by an amendment to the Succession Act giving the illegitimate child the same rights of intestacy, and in Clause 2 by a further amendment to the Succession Act, 1964, giving the illegitimate child precisely the


same right to legitim as the legitimate child.
In discussion in Committee my hon. Friends and I made clear that we were as anxious as anyone to improve the status so far as concerns succession of the illegitimate child for obvious reasons which do not require to be stated. Where the Committee took two different views was where a line should be drawn. In our view the provisions of those Clauses go too far because they are benefiting the illegitimate child to a point at which they can prejudice the legitimate Children, the children of that marriage, and also the widow who also has certain built-in rights of succession.
The effect of those Amendments is to confine the rights of succession of the illegitimate child first of all to the mother's estate, whether she has legitimate children or not, and secondly—this is where tie restriction comes in—to confine the rights of the illegitimate child on the father's estate to those cases where the child has lived, for however short a time, in family with the father.
There are reasons for this. In equity it is right to say that the relationship between a mother and her child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, is such as to entitle that child to an equal share in the estate with her legitimate children. The mother's relationship is such that any distinction drawn by law between her legitimate children and her illegitimate children tends to be somewhat artificial.
As I pointed out to the Committee, the position of the illegitimate child in regard to rights of succession on the estate of the mother has been progressively improved. By the Legitimacy Act, 1926, provided that the mother died intestate without leaving any issue, the illegitimate child was entitled to the same share of the estate as that to which he would have succeeded if he had been legitimate. Then in the Succession Act, 1964, those rights were extended in those circumstances by giving the illegitimate child a right of succession to the owner of the intestate estate of the mother.
We were prepared to accept the proposals of this Bill in relation to the mother's estate by putting the illegitimate child of the mother in exactly the same position from the point of view of rights of succession as her legitimate children.

Where the shoe began to pinch was where a question arose as to the rights of succession to the father's estate. The father's estate in any family has certain obligations long recognised by the law of Scotland towards the widow and children. It seemed to us that the line had to be drawn at a point at which there was no undue prejudice, to the rights of succession of the widow and children.
The provisions of Clause 1 amending the 1964 Act in this way and Clause 2 of the Bill undoubtedly qualify the legitimate interests in succession of a widow and children. I do not know that this point is capable of a great deal of elaboration. It is very much' a point of view, but only today I received representations from the Royal Faculty of Procurators in Glasgow and I note that, after full consideration, they entirely share the view which I have put forward. What they say on this aspect of the Bill is this:
The Clause on illegitimacy is too wide. The benefits of the Bill should be limited to a legitimate child living in family with a deceased parent, or if adult who was brought up in family with the parent; otherwise grave practical defects could arise by reason of a person unheard of by a legitimate family appearing after the parents' death and alleging to be a legitimate child.
This points to some of the practical difficulties to which reference was made in Committee.
What will happen here, since there has been a time bar, apart from the negative prescription of 20 years, is that a claim can be brought only by someone alleging that he is an illegitimate child—perhaps even after the father is deceased, and even if estate has been disputed by the trustees or executors—to the beneficiaries, and Particular to the widow and children of the marriage. In these circumstances it seems to us that this is a very far-reaching proposal.
While one would inevitably want to strengthen the legal position of the illegitimate child so far as possible—and I would mention in passing that the Legitimation (Scotland) Act was, apart from one technical requirement, accepted without any opposition from this side of the House, so I hope that no one will doubt our sincerity in this matter—a balance of interest has, none the less, to be struck and in our view this Clause goes


too far. These Amendments, apart from the drafting Amendment to which I have referred, seek to restore the balance to what is equitable to the illegitimate child on the one hand, and to the widow and children of the marriage on the other.

10.41 p.m.

Miss Harvie Anderson: Until this moment I have not had an opportunity of supporting my hon. and learned Friend in this respect. I must say in passing that I regret the absence of the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). It seemed quite like old times a moment ago, and I thought they were going to so continue. But I want to take this opportunity of supporting my hon. and learned Friend, partly because I am not a lawyer. Frequently this House is riddled with lawyers but, curiously enough, when legal Bills come to the Floor there are remarkably few of them present.
I want to make quite plain the fact that I am speaking not as a lawyer, but as one of the tens of thousands of ordinary citizens who are very considerably alarmed by the extent of provision for the illegitimate child which is being made in this part of the Bill. I know that this has been long argued out in Committee, but I should like to support the point of view which has been expressed so well tonight by my hon. and learned Friend, and to say that, although not a lawyer myself, I have from time to time benefited as he has from the advice of the Royal Faculty of Procurators of Glasgow, of which my father was long a member. I think that they have perhaps seen more clearly the possible results of the legislation which we are passing tonight than we in this House have been able to do, in our anxiety to make a more equitable distribution in favour of the illegitimate child.
Reference has been made—and I should like to remind the House of this—to the fact that when we passed the Succession (Scotland) Act, 1964, we provided for the issue. But in column 4 of the Report of the Committee stage of this Bill, the relevant passage of that Act was quoted. It said:
but is survived by illegitimate children, the illegitimate children shall have the right to the whole of the intestate estate."—[OFFICIAL

REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 2nd April, 1968; c. 4.]
At that time I was very alarmed at that provision, because I thought that it would inevitably lead to precisely the situation in which we find ourselves tonight. Whereas I thought at the time of passing the Succession (Scotland) Bill, as I still think tonight, that it is right to make adequate provision for the illegitimate child, I do not think it right to extend that provision to the point where it is possible to damage the legitimate children of a marriage.
The most substantial point in this consideration is that made by my hon. and learned Friend, which makes clear that an illegitimate child could appear on the scene for the first known time not only after the decease of the father, but also after the distribution of the estate to the widow and children. When we reach a point where this is possible in law, then I think we are opening the doors to very grave considerations. It does not take a lot of imagination to visualise a situation where this will happen; to visualise a situation where, when this happens, it will greatly, alter the anticipated position of the widow and the legitimate children; and, indeed, alter the pattern of life which they may have set for themselves as a result of receiving the distribution from the estate. That part of the submission of the Royal Faculty of Procurators of Glasgow which has been quoted is very pertinent, and I think that the practical difficulties which could arise if we pass the Bill in its present form are sufficiently grave to warrant that these Amendments should be accepted even at this late stage in the full knowledge that they will not damage the rights which we are seeking to offer the illegitimate child, but that they will preserve the rights which the legitimate child can be expected to have and, in my view, should continue to hold.
10.45 p.m.
I support what my hon. and learned Friend has said, and I hope very much that the Minister may see this not so much in the light of the new legislation, concentrated on an over-liberal view, but with objective sight such as that presented by those outside bodies, and the many people who have written to us, who are, perhaps, in a better position to look objectively than we are in this House tonight.

Mr. Buchan: I have listened with great care to the arguments which have been put forward. To a great extent they repeat the arguments with which we grew fairly familiar in Committee during an extended debate. I have not heard, I must confess, anything which has changed my basic view of the rightness of these provisions. The new arguments, the new evidence, the new points of view, the quotations by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) and the hon. Lady the Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) from the Royal Faculty of Procurators do not seem to me to alter the basic principles with which we have been concerned in these discussions. Indeed, I am rather surprised that the Amendment we now have here is, if anything, rather more restricted than the one we dealt with in Committee, as I recall it.
I accept that the Amendments put forward are not a total rejection of the views of the Russell Committee. I accept that they are an attempt to meet the problem to some extent, but I do not really think that it is sufficient to argue that because in an earlier Measure, the Legitimation Bill, we legitimated 3,000 people, and perhaps 50 to 60 a year onwards from its enactment, we have solved the problem, though we have gone a considerable way to solving it. While I recognise that hon. Members opposite supported that Bill, and I recognise their good faith in this matter, I do not think they have got to grips completely with our standpoint on this and our intention to proceed with these provisions.
The difficulty, among others, in the concept maintained by so many hon. Members opposite is, I think, that they tend to have the vision of the family and the arrival of the disrupting element, as they see it, of the illegitimate child who is not expected. I know that this has been a popular concept in some of our worst literature. I know it could happen in reality today. I know the heartburning such a situation may cause to the established family. However, with respect, one must ask hon. Members opposite to look at the other side of the picture, that is to say, the person who arrives.
Clause 1 of the Bill is an attempt to rectify an injustice which may have existed for a very long time for many people, and I ask hon. Members opposite to project themselves from their vision of the disruption of the family to that of the injustice which has been taking place for the illegitimate child. I must ask them to try to understand the motives behind the Clause. All these assumptions were fully considered in the Report of the Russell Committee, assumptions which were possible and desirable, and also the attempt to distinguish between different kinds of illegitimate persons in different circumstances—those who have lived in family and those who have not. They were also discussed in Committee on the Bill. I rejected similar Amendments in Committee for the reasons which I will deploy this evening, although I hope at less length.
I take the view that it is wrong and misguided to punish the child through the law of succession for the behaviour of the parents. I then used the term "punish by proxy". This is true of all children in relation to succession to estates of both parents. I do not accept, in spite of the clear difficulties, that there is a difference between the children of the father and the children of the mother.

Miss Harvie Anderson: Surely the hardship is equal for the legitimate child whose life is disrupted by the appearance of the illegitimate as that caused by the disruption to the illegitimate child by the right of succession.

Mr. Buchan: With respect I do not think that it is. A considerable shock may be administered. It may be that a legitimate child will lose part of the, estate, but we are considering a proportional loss and a total loss. I do, think we can equate the two things. Our views may have become coloured with a rather Victorian sense of morality which makes us fail to see the deeper morality involved. When one looks at this in the familiar concept of the family relationship it is never argued that this is necessary in the case of the legitimate child. It is not argued that one should adopt the concept of the line of succession only where the child has been living in the family. I do not see how we can apply that concept to the legitimate child.
The Amendments would cut out some of the deserving cases which the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) referred to in his minority Report. A father may have recognised and supported an illegitimate child, but circumstances may have prevented him bringing that child into the family.
The Russell Committee looked at the problem of the definition and found that they could not distinguish
…with the simplicity which should be aimed at in any law of succession
between illegitimate children with whom parents had established some degree of relationship, and others. The expression, "living in family" illustrates the dangers of trying to differentiate. It is not easy to express a definite term which can be interpreted and the certainty would go.
Apart from the moral argument, it is wrong to place this extra hurdle in their path by making them prove they were living in family. It is true that implementing the principle would impinge on the rights of inheritance of widows and legitimate children. We argued this at length in Committee.
In the case of the widow, it would happen only if she was receiving a large inheritance and she had no legtitimate children. If she had, it is the legitimate child which of itself would impinge on the widow's rights. The number of cases which would be affected by illegitimate children alone would be small.
We have accepted one simple criterion, which is that of paternity, and I want to deal with the difficulty of proof of paternity. Reference was made to the difficulties which might arise when a child arrived alleging to be an illegitimate child. The difficulties fall into two main groups, since necessity for proof can arise many years after the alleged father is said to have sired the child.
Evidence will rarely be available and the child will, in all probability, be likely to succeed only where he had been living in family or the father had acknowledged paternity in some other way. Secondly, it might be difficult to find a person who could successfully challenge or oppose the child's claim and it would be difficult to produce counter-evidence.
In a case of dispute, the court can take account of other possible factors, such as the birth certificate, a court decree or the finding of paternity. Such a finding of paternity will be admissible now as evidence of the child's right to succeed and, by virtue of the other parts of the Bill, it would be for anyone contesting the matter to show that the finding was wrong under Clause 11.
I accept that where there is not this kind of evidence it will be more difficult to prove paternity. But the onus is surely on the person making the claim rather than the other way round. After all, the court must be satisfied that paternity has been proved, and even if no rebutting evidence is found by the defence, a finding will not be made unless the evidence for the child is sufficient to prove the case.
So we are left with the prospect in this argument of possible fraudulent claims. But claimants will be required to prove their cases in a court of law and it will not be easy for them to do so. The main difficulty surely is not the prospect of fraudulent claims. One of the difficulties of a legitimate claim of an illegitimate child will be that of proof.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I do not wish to intervene in a Scottish debate, having already expressed my views on Second Reading. However, I would ask the hon. Gentleman whether he does not think that the proposals in the Bill will often lead to blackmailing actions or at any rate to blackmail—that is to say, claims on the flimsiest foundations which the legal representatives of the next-of-kin will be unwilling to oppose because it would give publicity to the matter which they will be anxious to avoid, although there is likely to be no foundation for the claim.

Mr. Buchan: I do not think that there is a great possibility of their being a very large number of such cases. Again, if there is a certain danger to society in this way, it is sometimes the sort of danger we have to accept in order to get the greater right done. May I add that we welcome the contribution of the hon. Gentleman to this discussion. On both sides of the House we know the great part he contributed to the Russell Committee. I have outlined and reiterated some of the arguments I deployed earlier in rejecting Amendments on this


matter. I have not referred to the Amendment on legitimation, which, in a sense, provides even more reason why the Bill should be left as it is.

Miss Harvie Anderson: Will the hon. Gentleman deploy the argument for the disruption of family life which would inevitably be created by the submission of a fraudulent claim? If, as is possible, a number of claims such as those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) and others, are likely to be made as a result of the Bill, surely we must put in the scales—and the hon. Gentleman has not done so—the great effect such claims will have on the legitimate family life, whether the claims are successful or not.

Mr. Buchan: These considerations have been put into the scales and we have come down firmly, not even on balance but firmly, on the side of morality and we believe that right is on the side of the Clause as drafted.

Mr. Wylie: It is never well for a Minister to complain about the drafting

of new Clauses and Amendments by the Opposition. We do not have the facilities of the Government in this matter. Surely terms like "living in family" and "membership of family" are not unknown in statute law. In my recollection, I believe that similar expressions are to be found in the Rent Restriction Acts. There has been no difficulty in interpreting that sort of expression so far, and there would be no difficulty here.

I would certainly prefer the hon. Gentleman to take his stand on the issue of principle, as he did in the latter part of his reply. The question is now whether we should go the whole way or whether a line should be drawn at some point. In our view, this provision in the Bill goes too far. We believe that it prejudices the interests of family life, and to that extent we should not support it, despite the hon. Gentleman's valiant effort to convert us to the Government's point of view.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 58, Noes 120.

Division No. 137.]
AYES
[11.0 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Silvester, Frederick


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Awdry, Daniel
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Stainton, Keith


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Stodart, Anthony


Boardman, Tom
Higgins, Terence L.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hordern, Peter
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Temple, John M.


Campbell, Gordon
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Cary, Sir Robert
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Ward, Dame Irene


Chichester-Clark, R.
Monro, Hector
Weatherill, Bernard


Clegg, Walter
More, Jasper
Webster, David


Crouch, David
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Whitelaw, Rt, Hn. William


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Wright, Esmond


Eden, Sir John
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Wylie, N. R.


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Younger, Hn. George


Eyre, Reginald
Percival, Ian



Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Peyton, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Goodhew, Victor
Pink, R. Bonner
Mr. Michael Clark Hutchinson and


Gower, Raymond
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Mr. Ian MacArthur.


Grant, Anthony
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)





NOES


Archer, Peter
Coe, Denis
Ellis, John


Armstrong, Ernest
Concannon, J. D.
English, Michael


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Faulds, Andrew


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Barnett, Joel
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Ford, Ben


Bessell, Peter
Dewar, Donald
Forrester, John


Binns, John
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Freeson, Reginald


Bishop, E. S.
Dickens, James
Garrett, W. E.


Booth, Albert
Dobson, Ray
Gourlay, Harry


Bradley, Tom
Doig, Peter
Gregory, Arnold


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Dunnett, Jack
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Hamling, William


Buchan, Norman
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Hannan, William


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Eadie, Alex
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Carmichael, Neil
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Haseldine, Norman




Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Maclennan, Robert
Richard, Ivor


Horner, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
MacPherson, Malcolm
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Manuel, Archie
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Hunter, Adam
Marquand, David
Sheldon, Robert


Janner, Sir Barnett
Mendelson, J. J.
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Millan, Bruce
Small, William


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Stonehouse, John


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Swingler, Stephen


Judd, Frank
Moyle, Roland
Taverne, Dick


Kenyon, Clifford
Newens, Stan
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Norwood, Christopher
Varley, Eric G.


Leadbitter, Ted
Oakes, Gordon
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Ogden, Eric
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
O'Malley, Brian
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Loughlin, Charles
Oram, Albert E.
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Oswald, Thomas
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


MacDermot, Niall
Palmer, Arthur
Woof, Robert


Macdonald, A. H.
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Yates, Victor


Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Pavitt, Laurence



Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mackintosh, John P.
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Mr. Neil McBride and




Mr. Joseph Harper.

Clause 13.

INTERPRETATION OF PART III, AND SAVINGS.

Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 10, line 18, leave out from 'tribunal' to 'and' in line 20 and insert:
'except proceedings in relation to which the strict rules of evidence do not apply,'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would be convenient, I think, to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 8, in page 10, leave out lines 22 and 23.

Mr. Buchan: I am obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Hon. Members opposite, and particularly the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie), will remember our short discussion of these words in Committee. This is a purely drafting Amendment to deal with a point which was raised by the hon. and learned Member. In Part III of the Bill we are making changes in the law of evidence as regards civil proceedings, and abolishing the requirement of corroboration. We are also making criminal convictions admissible thereafter. The provisions, therefore, are drafted in terms of evidence before the ordinary civil courts, but if we change the basic law of evidence in the court proper, clearly it should have its effect throughout all civil proceedings.
It is less easy to put into effect in Statutes, because outside the courts proper the laws of evidence are applied

and departed from to a greater or lesser extent depending on the precise nature of the tribunal. We do not want to alter the basic situation. These procedures have been built up as a result of experience to meet the need for which the tribunals were established.
In so far as they have been bound by the law, we want them to take account of the law as we have amended it. In so far as they have not been, we wish to leave them free and not to bind them by the amended law. This is precisely what the subsection did as originally drafted and what it does as we propose to amend it. The drafting improvement merely simplifies that provision. As originally drafted, the subsection was quite correct in substance, but was unduly repetitive, and the two provisions can be combined in the interests of brevity and clarity.
By applying Part III to civil proceedings before tribunals in which the strict rules of evidence are applied, that is to say the rules applied in the courts proper, we make sure that we take account of changes in the rules enacted in that Part by applying the provisions to other tribunals. We are ensuring that they remain there.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 8, in page 10, leave out lines 22 and 23.—[Mr. Buchan.]

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Buchan.]

11.12 p.m.

Mr. Wylie: I do not wish to detain the House for many moments but I feel obliged to say something on the Bill. We on this side welcome Measures of law reform and no one welcomes them more than I. The last Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill was accepted by this side of the House. The Legitimation Bill which is now in another place was welcomed in principle as a measure of law reform. I welcome the principle of proposals for law reform coming from the Scottish Law Commission, for which I have a high regard, although it could be strengthened in certain ways.
What worries me about the Bill is that it contains a number of far-reaching changes in the law, mostly disconnected, all bound up in one Measure, which will make it very difficult for the practitioner to keep abreast of those changes.
The burden of my criticism is this. The proposals in Clause 9 amend the law of evidence. Radical changes of that nature in the law should take place only after the widest and most careful discussion with those bodies most directly concerned, in this instance Her Majesty's judges in Scotland, the Faculty of Advocates, the Law Society and so forth.
This Clause proceeds on the basis of recommendations simply of the Scottish Law Commission. I do not wish to argue on the proposals contained in the Clause, which would be out of order. The Clause has caused much concern in legal circles in Scotland, and it contains the kind of change which should have been embodied in an evidence Bill.
Likewise, Clause 5 makes radical changes in the rules of construction of deeds. The representations I have had recently on Clause 8 are very worrying. Clause 8 applies the Succession (Scotland) Act to the tenancies of crofts. I have had strong representations against the Clause, which unfortunately it is now too late to take up. One feels that there has not been adequate discussion by the Government, particularly with the Crofters' Union, which is an extremely interested body; and I have no doubt that the hon.

Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie) will endorse these remarks.
There are other provisions in the Bill which I do not like. I hope that the next time we have a Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill it will not contain such a hotchpotch of radical changes, most of which appear to have proceeded with entirely inadequate consideration and discussion.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: I am not competent to comment on any part of the Bill save Clause 8, which is entitled:
Application of Succession (Scotland) Act 1964 to tenancies of crofts.
The Measure introduces major changes in the system of crofting tenure. The Minister may wonder why he has heard so little from the crofters, particularly since the Bill has almost completed its passage through the House. There are two reasons for this; first, because the crofters knew little or nothing about these changes until the Second Reading had been completed, and, secondly, because the Crofters Commission, which was set up to look after the interests of the crofters, was established with the idea of not recommending major changes in crofting legislation without first consulting crofter opinion on the widest possible front. This has not happened.
The crofters' rigid form of tenure has often been blamed for the lack of progress in crofting areas, but, from my long experience of crofting, I have not found this to be the case, except on rare occasions. The peculiarities of the system have been a measure of its success and it is interesting to note that the Highlands and Islands Development Board commented on the system in its first Report published in 1967:
Bearing in mind all that has been said about the system and its admittedly stultifying form of land tenure, it is apparently paradoxical, but we believe true, that if one had to look now for a way of life which would keep that number of people in such relatively intractable territory, it would be difficult to contrive a better system.
That was an important statement, coming from a body that was set up to look after the interests of the Highlands and Islands and after examining the situation afresh.
Some crofting families can claim family ties to their crofts going back many centuries. This has been mainly due to the fact that the male heir has always succeeded to the tenancy. But under the Bill if a crofter survives his wife and dies intestate, the estate may have to be divided among all the members of the family, with the result that it will be unlikely that one of them will be able to carry on the tenancy.
Perhaps some changes are necessary and perhaps the changes proposed by the Government are designed to secure better conditions for crofters' widows. If so, this is a high motive, but I suggest that there are other ways in which widows could be helped. Anyone who has studied the crofting system and crofting laws will agree that security of tenure has been the cornerstone of the system in the past. When it has been proved that it has saved crofting from complete extinction, major changes should not be undertaken lightly. I put down an Amendment to exclude this Clause, but it was not called. That, I understand, was for technical reasons. It is late in the day to call for the exclusion of the Clause now, but, in fairness to the crofters, we should keep up the reputation of bodies looking after their interests and more consideration should be given to them. Crofters should have been given an opportunity to express their views before these changes were made.

11.21 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: It has been extremely useful to hear what the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie) said because probably no one in the House knows more than he about crofting conditions. We missed him from the Committee when that Clause was discussed. It is an important Clause, as I made clear in Committee.
What the hon. Member said has fortified what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) said about the Bill. One thing which has characterised all its Clauses has been the complete lack of consultation with interested parties concerned with its legal provisions and those closely involved with crofting, who could

have considerably helped with Clause 8. I hope that the Under-Secretary will take a lesson from this and that when other Bills of this kind are presented we shall have consultations with those who, if these matters were put to them, would be willing to help to make a better Bill.

11.23 p.m.

Mr. Buchan: I welcome the opportunity of a very short Third Reading debate. This is a useful Bill. I accept the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) that it contains a variety of topics, but that is of the nature of a miscellaneous provisions Bill. Most hon. Members in the Committee, although they disagreed with various aspects of the Bill and felt deeply about the earlier parts, nevertheless recognised the importance and the validity of the matters brought forward.
On the arguments deployed by the hon. and learned Member against a miscellaneous law reform Bill, I accept that there may be difficulty for the practitioner, but we must keep in mind that there are also difficulties for people suffering injustice if we do not have miscellaneous law reform Bills of this kind. I accept that we might have waited for a Bill on evidence, but in the meantime the kind of person we have sought to protect would have been suffering. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. John Robertson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small) emphasised that each year there are many cases involving industrial injury and people whom they concern would have suffered if we had waited for another Bill on evidence.
We are told that the main objections are that we failed to consult on relevant parts of the Bill and failed to recognise the concern expressed in areas where we failed to, consult. Let it be clear that the major section of the Bill on the question of dealing with illegitimate children was the result of a high-powered Committee which met and heard high-powered evidence. Therefore, any argument to the contrary is not tenable.
On the other point in regard to a change in the law of evidence, it is true that there has been criticism about lack of consultation. But it is not true to draw the corollary that overwhelming sections


of the legal profession in Scotland are opposed to this. The Faculty of Advocates in a letter to me have said that they were opposed to the provision only by a narrow majority. This is hardly an overwhelming section. Secondly, an important legal body, the Society of Writers to the Signet, have approved of it. Therefore, one cannot draw the conclusion that there is a great majority against this Bill.
It is reasonable that there should be concern when one changes a centuries old legal practice in Scotland. But merely because a thing is centuries old, it is not necessarily correct. We should be pleased that this is being brought into operation. This is an amendment to our law which makes it comparable in this regard with any other civilised country of Europe, with the exception of Portugal. I am glad that we have brought it in as quickly as this without awaiting future legislation on evidence.
Then we come to the third element, the matter of consultation. I accept the wisdom, knowledge and awareness which the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie) brings into a debate when he deals with crofting. I, too, very much regret that he was not present during the Committee proceedings. I am not sure that he was right in his strictures about failure to consult. The measure which we have brought in is correct, not least because of the security which it gives to the widow. To have left the position on the male primogeniture with the new change which we have brought into the law in other respects would have created a difficult situation in the Highlands. Most people with whom I have discussed the matter have approved of it as bringing in a necessary improvement. Far from its bringing in any dereliction of security, it provides an additional security to many people in the crofting community.
I know that one section of the Crofters' Union is opposed to it. I have seen their memorandum on this matter, and I will not go into it in detail. I have not had very much other evidence of widespread opposition. It is not a correct accusation that we have not consulted the crofters, since the provisions were approved by the Crofters Commission—a body which statutorily we are bound to consult and which we have consulted.

I have seen no evidence that in 1964 when a change was made the party opposite consulted any more than we have. We consulted them in the first place, but, more important, now that we have reappointed the Panels of Assessors to the Crofters Commission it contains a group of people who reflect the crofters' point of view at the Grazings Committee level.
There has been little, if any, opposition at assessors' meetings on this matter. The House will be pleased to know that when the Federation of Crofters' Unions recently met in Inverness they welcomed the new proposals as they affect crofters. Therefore, we have consulted, and I believe that our measures have been accepted and welcomed by most sections of the crofting community.
I have spoken at rather great length on Third Reading. It seems to me that the three main elements in the Bill are necessary and valuable. We are indebted, on the one hand, to the Russell Committee, and, on the other, to Lord Kilbrandon and the Law Commission for preparing the material on which the Bill has been based. I am sure that it will bring a greater sense of justice to significant sections of the people of Scotland.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

LLWYNYPIA HOSPITAL (CASUALTY UNIT)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McBride.]

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Alec Jones: I rise this evening to speak on the decision which has apparently been taken to close the casualty unit at the Llwynypia Hospital. First of all, I should like to say that though I represent but one half of Rhondda in this House, my colleague the hon. Member for Rhondda, East (Mr. G. Elfed Davies) shares my views and wishes to be associated with all my remarks. If he were here he would add his voice to mine, but as Members know he is unavoidably absent due to Parliamentary duties abroad.
I think at a time like this that no Member can claim with greater certainty than I can that he is speaking for all the people of his area. The letters, telegrams and phone calls which I have received in the past few weeks all reflect the bitter resentment, the deep disappointment and the justifiable opposition from the people of Rhondda at my right hon. Friend's decision. From all quarters messages supporting me have poured in. My right hon. Friend has done something which no Minister has ever done before. He has indeed achieved the impossible. He has in Rhondda united the Labour Party, the Communist Party, the Welsh Nationalists and even the ratepayers all in bitter opposition to his plans. He has succeeded in uniting trade unions and industrialists, clergy and publicans, teachers and governing bodies of schools, and a host of other organisations and individuals all convinced of the need to retain the casualty service in Rhondda.
I ask my right hon. Friend to believe me when I say that if this were a mere political issue I should not be pressing it. But it is a matter which for people in Rhondda transcends politics. If my right hon. Friend could convince me that his decision was the correct one, then I should not be making this protest, but would be quite willing to defend his decision and to argue his case with my own people. But from my meetings during the past few weeks not only with lay people, but with nurses, with senior sisters, ambulance drivers, general practitioners, doctors in the hospital service, members of hospital management committees—all these people with years of practical experience of administrating and working in the health service of Rhondda agree that the Plewes Committee, which made the recommendation, in the short time available for its inquiries and with its lack of knowledge of the special problems of Rhondda, could not have been expected to make a reasoned judgment on this vital matter.
Because a pattern of hospital service concentrating its casualty services in one base hospital suits the needs of some areas, or possibly many areas, of the country, it does not follow that that is the ideal pattern for all parts of the

country, because it pays insufficient attention to the special needs and difficulties of areas such as Rhondda. The problem of the casualty service in Rhondda arises from an accident of history which made East Glamorgan the base hospital for the Pontypridd and Rhondda Group, and there is no justification for that accident of history being perpetuated.
East Glamorgan, as my right hon. Friend knows, is at the edge of the area which it serves. It is some 20 miles from the top of the Rhondda, along winding roads and difficult hills made impassable at some time every winter by snow and ice. East Glamorgan was never sited nor intended to meet the needs of the 97,000 people who now reside in Rhondda. These are physical facts of geography which my right hon. Friend must have known and accepted when in 1965—just three years ago—he gave a directive to maintain the casualty unit at Llwynypia. Even accepting the fact that no directive can be permanent and last for all time, it is impossible to justify a reversal of this policy in a mere three years when there has been no change in the need for a casualty unit in Rhondda.
We are entitled to ask what account the Plewes Committee took of the special geographical difficulties of Rhondda. Did it make the journey from the top of the valleys from Fernhill or Maerdy to East Glamorgan? Did it drive by car apart from such a journey by bus? Did it consider evidence regarding the state of the roads, especially in winter? No outside body on a short visit to Rhondda could hope to be cognisant of these important considerations, not considerations merely of the convenience of patients but considerations of delay in the giving of urgent and life-saving treatment.
I would urge my right hon. Friend to consider and to reconsider his decision, not merely because of the weight of public opinion but remembering that in a democracy these views are of great importance. I would urge my right hon. Friend to look at the matter again, because the Plewes Report, which was, in the words of the hospital management committee, "hastily conceived" could not have taken sufficiently into account the expressed and expert opinion of medical, nursing, ambulance and hospital management committee staffs.
Let me quote some of their views, which are apparently to be ignored. In October, 1965, the view was expressed by the consultant orthopaedic traumatic surgeons that
Llwynypia Hospital should be kept open between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. to cope with the large number of cases which are seen.
This view was confirmed in July last year by the medical staffs committee of the Pontypridd and Rhondda Group. In July, 1967, this was the written view expressed by the senior administrative medical officer of the board:
Firmly of the opinion that (a) with the medical assistant and full junior personnel in post a full casualty service should be maintained; (b) if the medical assistant is away then a screening service could be provided by the junior personnel.
On 10th April of this year, just a month ago, the management committee together with its medical advisers, knowing the particular problems of the area—this is the important point: the management committee together with its medical advisers, knowing the particular problems of the area: I deliberately repeat the words—said that maintenance of a casualty department at Llwynypia Hospital during the day
is absolutely essential for the people of the Rhondda".
They added these words for good measure:
Indeed, it is good management to divert from the main base those minor injuries which could be treated elsewhere and which would otherwise clutter up the major accident department".
This month the Glamorgan National Health Executive Council expressed its 100 per cent. opposition to the closure. Even the doctors at present working in the hospital service were among the 40,000 signatories to the petition opposing the closure.
These are not frivolous opinions, but the opinions of experts with real knowledge of Rhondda's problems, and these opinions are supported by the general practitioners of the area, doctors who are daily confronted with these problems of casualty and accident cases. I know my right hon. Friend has seen letters of protest representing the views of 80 per cent. of the general practitioners of the Rhondda. The 20 per cent. missing were missing because of the lack of time. Not one dissentient voice has come from the

general practitioners to support the Minister's view. I should like to quote a little from a letter from one general practitioner particularly well known to me
As a general practitioner who has practised in Rhondda for 27 years I strongly resent the proposal to close the casualty department at Llwynypia… The permanent closure will lead to increased strain on the already overtaxed general practitioner service. Increased distances involved will mean increased risk and danger.
I will read an extract from a letter from a younger general practitioner who only recently arrived in the Rhondda.
The decision to close the casualty unit at Llwynypia is most likely to force younger doctors to leave the valley for a more secure area with better facilities.
I know that this is not the Minister's wish and it is not mine. This doctor goes on to make a suggestion and I would ask my right hon. Friend to pay particular attention to it. He says that it would be possible to enlist general practitioners employed on a long-term sessional basis to man the accident unit.
I ask the Minister to consider this point again and to ask the hospital management committee and the regional board to consider it since it was the staffing difficulty at East Glamorgan which led to the present trouble. One of the reasons advanced in support of the Minister's decision is the difficulty of staffing.
Although we know that there are 36 general practitioners in the Rhondda the Plewes Committee was able to consult only one and he was opposed to the recommendation. Surely in health matters like this the views of general practitioners, who are usually the first people to meet casualties and accident victims, ought to have been given greater consideration and greater weight.
It has been argued that many of the cases now going to Llwynypia Hospital ought to be, and could have been, dealt with in the surgeries of general practitioners. This might be reasonable in some parts of the country, but as the Minister knows the incidence of illness in the Rhondda is 2½ times the average for Britain. The work loads of general practitioners are already far too heavy. It would be impossible for general practitioners at present to treat every minor


injury now going to the Llwynypia Hospital.
I know that health centres have been put forward as a solution to the problem. This might be realistic in the future and that is why I said earlier that no decision ought to be permanent. At the moment there are no health centres in Rhondda. I welcome the one to be built at Tonypandy, but one is completely inadequate for present needs.
There is the problem of the extra demand for ambulances. I know that when a deputation went to see the Minister it was said that there would be no extra demand which could not be coped with. This has never been proved. What can be proved is the mileage of ambulances based at Treherbert at the top of the Rhondda has been increased with Llwynypia closed in the evening. Ambulance drivers in their letters to me, and the letters I have received from victims, give examples of the long delays. Ambulance drivers are convinced that the ambulance service is already overworked. I receive numerous complaints on this and the ambulance service will be unable to cope with the extra demand.
School teachers and the governing bodies of schools have expressed deep concern over this in relation to the treatment of minor accidents during school hours. As a school teacher I have taken children by bus to Llwynypia, but I would never attempt such a journey to East Glamorgan.
Of the 750 new cases treated per month at Llwynypia a large proportion will seek an ambulance, and who can blame them? From most parts of the Rhondda one bus will take them to Llwynypia but to go to East Glamorgan they will need never less than two buses, usually three and sometimes four. What importance did the Plewes Committee attach to the bus service in the Rhondda?
The safety of the patient is, I know the basis of the concern of the Minister, and it is mine. From ambulance drivers, nurses and doctors I have heard of patients having to be resuscitated and having to have urgent supportive treatment at Llwynypia before being conveyed to other hospitals.
I quote a letter I received last Monday from ambulance drivers. They said:

We wonder which would have happened recently to the miner injured at Maerdy colliery with crush injuries, or the woman knocked down in Treorchy whose fractured foot was obstructing her blood circulation, or the little boy who last Friday took an overdose of drugs.
These three cases were taken to Llwynypia Hospital and are examples where supportive treatment there saved the possible loss of the miner's life, the woman's foot or the young child's life. We hear from both staff and patients at East Glamorgan that the hospital is already bursting at the seams. That applies to the casualty department as well. I know that improvements are envisaged but is it reasonable to expect that East Glamorgan will be able to cope with the extra demand from patients now being treated at Llwynypia Hospital, especially since the nearby area of Llantrisant is planning a new town development? What investigation did the Committee make into the effects of the new development on the casualty services of the area?
The complete withdrawal of casualty services from Llwynypia Hospital has not been and cannot be justified. Despite the eminence of the members of the Committee, the inquiry was carried out in haste—and this has been referred to by the hospital management committee and was intimated by a member of the Welsh Hospital Board on the deputation. The Committee had lack of knowledge of local conditions, which was no fault of its members, and failed adequately to consult those best able to give evidence, which was probably a question of time. The fact is that the overwhelming evidence both lay and medical, is opposed to its findings.
The Committee's recommendation ought to be reversed or at least reconsidered. The case for the retention of the casualty unit at Llwynypia Hospital is overwhelming, particularly during the day time. Any arguments against this are in direct conflict with those best able by qualification and experience and local knowledge to judge.
I want publicly to thank all those, far too many to mention, who have sent letters and telegrams to me and have helped me to do the job I was sent here to do. I know that our cause is just. I have done my best to present it fairly and efficiently. I appeal to my right hon.


Friend to reverse his decision and retain the casualty unit at Llwynypia Hospital, if only from nine a.m. to five p.m. Delay it until the new health centres are built and until we can see whether general practitioners can help the casualty staff at Llwynypia. If all these things are too much, I ask him to accept the plea of Rhondda Borough Council and establish an open inquiry so that justice can not only be done but can be seen to be done on behalf of the people of Rhondda.

11.47 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): May I, at the outset, say that I have much sympathy for the people of the Rhondda who are naturally greatly disturbed at the proposed closure of the casualty unit at Llwynypia Hospital.
The Welsh Hospital Board informed me that it accepted the Plewes Committee's Report and sought my authority to proceed with the implementation of its recommendations. It is the second of the two main recommendations, the closure of Llwynypia, which has given rise to this debate tonight and it is to this that I gave the most careful thought in arriving at my decision. I would ask my hon. Friend and the people of the Rhondda, for whom he speaks, to believe that, in considering the difficult issues presented to me in this situation, I have been activated solely by the desire to ensure the best possible accident service for the Pontypridd and Rhondda area.
Before I deal with the local question in more detail, I would like to say something of the developments which are taking place throughout the hospital service for dealing with accidents and emergencies. Some years ago a sub-committee of the Standing Medical Advisory Committee made a comprehensive study of these services. It recommended that the existing number of accident and emergency units should be substantially reduced and the services concentrated in a pattern of units staffed and equipped to deal immediately with injuries and other emergencies at any hour of the day or night. Injured patients requiring hospital treatment should, the Report recommended, be taken direct to these units rather than to the nearest hospital, unless of course it included such a unit.
Boards throughout the country have been reorganising and rationalising the

facilities for accident and emergency services in accordance with these recommendations. At selected hospitals they have designated accident and emergency units with an experienced consultant in day to day control, and with surgeons, anaesthetists and other medical staff and trained nurses with the necessary supporting services to enable them to deal with injuries and emergencies at all times, including weekends and holidays.
There is only one way of providing an effective 24-hour service of this kind and that is to concentrate hospital resources in terms of manpower and facilities. Unless we do so, essential elements in the treatment of seriously injured patients will be missing when they are needed. In short we are concentrating accident services in order to save lives. It is not possible for every hospital to be staffed and equipped up to the necessary high standard, and in the course of this concentration of services the casualty department at some hospitals will inevitably be closed as the accident and emergency services at the selected hospitals are developed and expanded.
The need for rationalisation is often insufficiently understood. When a patient needs emergency treatment because of injury or for some other reason, it is hard to appreciate that it may not be in his best interest to take him to the nearest hospital. But the fact remains that only if he is taken to a hospital with a comprehensive accident unit will he receive the expert diagnosis, skilled treatment he may need. The trend in modern medicine is towards team work drawing on the skills of a range of medical disciplines. It will be obvious that units of the kind I have described make heavy demand on resources both of manpower and materials, and it was on this account that the committee on accident and emergency services recommended a concentration into a pattern of units each serving a population of at least 150,000.
The population served by the Management Committee referred to is of this order, in fact it is 163,000 and cannot justify more than one such unit.
Experience has demonstrated the wisdom of the general policy in relation to accident services. This policy has the double advantage that not only does the patient get more effective treatment but


the resources of manpower and equipment, which cannot be unlimited, are put to the most economical use. In pursuance of this policy a number of casualty departments have already been closed in England and Wales, and a better all-round service has resulted.
Despite all the Welsh Hospital Board and the Pontypridd and Rhondda Hospital Management Committee could do, it has not always been possible to find medical staff to man the unit at Llwynypia, so as to provide even the restricted service of which a small unit of this kind is capable, with the consequence that various limitations have had to be accepted. It has not been possible in spite of every effort to provide anything like 24-hour cover and the service has had to be very much curtailed. For some time past the unit has operated on a 9 a.m.—5 p.m. basis on Mondays to Fridays, 9 a.m.—1 p.m. on Saturdays with no service at all on Sundays.
Staffing difficulties have also been experienced in the accident unit at East Glamorgan Hospital. The situation there became critical towards the end of 1967 and it was this that led to the appointment of the Plewes Committee to which reference has been made in this debate.
The Welsh Hospital Board was thus faced with a difficult choice. To try to maintain two casualty units, neither providing a full accident and emergency service would be against the best interests of the patient, whose safety calls for the highest standards of service and skill that are available in the specially staffed and best equipped accident centre.
Neither would it enable the limited resources of manpower to be used in the most economic and efficient manner possible. Hospital authorities frequently have to balance these considerations against the argument that to concentrate casualty services inevitably means that many smaller departments have to be closed, and that this must entail some inconvenience for patients living at a distance from the accident centre.
I came to the conclusion that the hospital board was right to apply to the Pontypridd and Rhondda group the general principle of concentrating resources, and that the first priority must

be the build-up of the accident unit at East Glamorgan hospital with the consequence that the need to maintain a casualty service at Llwynypia will diminish and ultimately come to an end. This does not mean that the hospital at Llwynypia will cease to play a useful part in the treatment of accident and emergency cases. On the contrary, as I have tried to emphasise, accident follow-up services at Llwynypia will not only be maintained but extended. Full use will be made of the beds at Llwynypia, and out-patient clinics will provide for the care of Rhondda patients after their initial treatment at East Glamorgan hospital. In this way each hospital will be making the best contribution that it is equipped to make towards a comprehensive service for the whole area, including the Rhondda. The one will be complementary to the other, rather than both trying to provide casualty facilities with resources that do not permit the maintenance of a satisfactory level of service at either.
I accept that the closure of the casualty unit at Llwynypia Hospital will place an additional burden on the ambulance service in the Pontypridd and Rhondda area, but I am happy to confirm to my hon. Friend that Glamorgan County Council has assured me that it will be able to expand its ambulance service to meet the additional demands that will be made on it.
Those, then, were the factors which determined my decision to accept the recommendation of the Welsh Hospital Board. I knew that it would come as a disappointment to many in the Rhondda who have an understandable affection for their local hospital, but it is not Llwynypia which is to close. It is no more than one limited service that it provides, that of dealing with comparatively minor casualties during normal working hours. The Welsh Hospital Board has no intention of closing Llwynypia Hospital itself. I mention that to relieve some anxieties that I have heard expressed.
From the reports that I have had of the nature of the work done at the casualty unit, much could be handled with the facilities usually available under the general medical services. I know well the difficulties of general practice in the Rhondda, but the proposal to


build a health centre at Tonypandy should make it easier for the local doctors to provide this sort of service. To this end I shall do all I can to encourage the development of further health centres or group practice premises in the area.
Though I am unshaken in my conviction that this decision is right and in the best interests of the Rhondda patients, I am not pressing the Welsh Hospital Board to implement it immediately. Indeed it will be a matter of months, not weeks, before this happens. The Welsh Hospital Board will shortly be appointing a consultant based on Church Village to organise and be responsible for the accident and emergency services for the whole area. If he, as the consultant responsible, felt that he favoured some different organisation of the services, and could deploy the resources of manpower at his disposal in some better way, the Welsh Hospital Board and I would be bound to give attention to his views.
I do not want what I have said to lead my hon. Friend or his constituents to think that I have weakened in my resolve, but I want them to know that I am very willing, before the proposed arrangements are finally implemented, to take into account the views of the consultant who will have medical responsibility for the service provided for the entire area.
I repeat to my hon. Friend that my only concern is to provide the best possible accident and emergency service for the area. I hope that I have succeeded if not in convincing him, at least in shaking his present conviction that the decision is not for the best. If I have done so, I can only hope that he will commend it to his constituents.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Twelve o'clock.